Fisheries Results and Impact Analysis

Transcription

1 City of Kingston Environmental Assessment Third Crossing of the Cataraqui River Fisheries Results and Impact Analysis Prepared for: J. L. Richards & Associates Ltd. Prepared by: Bowfin Environmental Consulting Version.0 May 20

2 Executive Summary The City of Kingston has initiated an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the need for and feasibility of implementing additional transportation capacity across the Cataraqui River within the city boundaries. The EA is proceeding as a Schedule C Class EA as per the Ontario Municipal Class EA process. It must also address the federal EA framework as per the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The EA process is being undertaken in two stages. Stage focused on the needs assessment and a number of river crossing options within a study area extending from the LaSalle Causeway in the south to Highway 40 in the north. Stage recommended a bridge crossing at John Counter Boulevard and Gore Road as the preferred option (Figure ). Stage 2 will examine the potential impact of a crossing within the preferred corridor in more detail. This report deals with fish and fish habitat for the Stage 2 which describes existing aquatic conditions within the preferred corridor and potential impacts to fish and fish habitat associated with the project. All other natural environmental issues are dealt with in a separate report prepared by others. The project area is located on the Cataraqui River, between John Counter Boulevard and Gore Street and includes a portion of the Rideau Canal navigation channel. The Rideau Canal is a designated UNESCO World Heritage Site, National Historic Site, and Canadian Heritage River. Another significant feature identified within the project area is the submergent and floating wetland communities. These form part of the Greater Cataraqui Marsh, a provincially significant wetland, and a Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest. The habitat within the project area was fairly homogenous consisting primarily of a slow moving glide with fine sediments and dense submergent vegetation. Much of the project area was located within the bay created by Belle Island. The aquatic vegetation along the shoreline within the bay consisted primarily of extremely dense floating and submergents with a thin band of emergent (cattails). Offshore, but still within the bay at the mid channel sites, the vegetation was chocked with dense submergent vegetation. The navigable channel associated with the Rideau Canal system was located close to the east shoreline. This channel contained the deepest habitat (at 3.6 m) and lacked aquatic vegetation. There is another route on the west side that represents a dredged access route from the Rideau Canal navigation corridor to the Music Marina near the foot of John Counter Boulevard. Here the vegetation was less dense as well but there was no change in water depth. The only spawning activity observed during the spring, summer and fall field sampling consisted of yellow perch which were found spawning throughout the mid channel sites during the spring Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 2

3 visit (ample eggs and ripe females were captured). However the presence of YOY pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass and the occasional rock bass and brown bullhead suggests that these species are also spawning within the project area. Overall, the results demonstrated that the communities were composed primarily of common warm to cool water sport and forage fish; no species of conservation value or SAR were captured or observed. The sportfish captured were northern pike, white sucker, yellow bullhead, brown bullhead, rock bass pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, black crappie, and yellow perch. All species observed were considered common cool to warm water forage or sport fish. The round goby, an invasive species, was also captured. The potential impacts associated with this project will primarily be dictated by the footprint created by both the construction activities and the bridge itself is required. The construction of the bridge will require access at each bridge pier location and the installation of the bridge spans. The. km shore-to-shore distance at the preferred corridor means that one of the following three in-water bridge construction options could be used: a temporary earth berm; dredging; or a temporary work bridge. The footprint of the bridge includes the approaches, piers and superstructure. Of these only the piers would have an in-water footprint. The direct impacts associated with the bridge (foundations and superstructure) include: minor restriction of fish movement and avoidance of the area while the piers are being constructed and the loss of m 2 of fish habitat. Indirect impacts include the potential for shading and loss of a portion of the riparian corridor and erosion along the shoreline. It is noted that the direct footprint of any of the three construction methods is much larger (i.e. between ha) than the footprint of the bridge itself (i.e. between m 2, depending on the type of pier design). These impacts were assessed during all phases of the project, construction, operation and decommissioning, and the DFO risk assessment was applied to evaluate the potential for Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of fish habitat. These assessments found that all of the three in-water bridge construction methods as well as the construction of the bridge itself would be categorized as acceptable low risk projects under the DFO Risk Management Framework. None of the three options should be eliminated based on their potential to impact fish or fish habitat. However, the area of direct impact varies greatly between all three options. The work bridge would impact the least amount of area followed by dredging. Regardless of the option chosen, most of the potential impacts associated with gaining access to construct the bridge and the construction of the bridge itself could be eliminated or reduced using mitigation measures. Once the methods of construction are chosen, the evaluation of potential impacts should be updated. Upon tender, the EPP should be designed and should include appropriate monitoring. A review of the potential of the project to impact SAR and any new regulations that may come into effect may be needed should this project proceed to tender. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 3

4 Table of Contents.0 INTRODUCTION...8. Summary of Proposed Bridge Location and Design Setting METHODOLOGY Review of Background Information Stage Habitat Description Stage Fish Community Sampling STAGE BACKGROUND REVIEW SUMMARY Fish Habitat and Community Species at Risk (SAR) Species of Conservation Value SITE INVESTIGATION RESULTS Water Quality Results Habitat and Fish Community Results West Side Mid Channel East Side Fish Habitat and Community Summary POTENTIAL IMPACTS Footprint of Bridge and Construction Activities Description of Construction Options and Summary of Footprint Physical Footprint of Bridge Evaluation of Potential Impacts Construction/Decommissioning Phases Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 4

5 5.2.2 Operation Phase HABITAT ENHANCEMENTS CONCLUSION REFERENCES Appendix A List of Fish Species for the Cataraqui River Appendix B List of Potential Fish Species based on those LOMU List for Lake Ontario Appendix C Concept Drawings Provided by Associated Engineering List of Figures Figure Location of the Environmental Assessment Project Area... Figure 2 Location of Preferred Corridor Study Area... 3 Figure 3 Location of Sites within Study Area... 6 Figure 4 Aquatic Vegetation Map of the Preferred Corridor Study Area Figure 5 Site A - Shoreline Habitat Profile Figure 6 Site B - Shoreline Habitat Profile... 3 Figure 7 Site C Shoreline Habitat Profile Figure 8 Site D Shoreline Habitat Profile Figure 9 Site E Shoreline Habitat Profile List of Tables Table Summary of Fish and Submergent Plant Species at Risk Identified as Potentially Occurring within the EA Project Area or Lake Ontario (based on background information) Table 2 Summary of Fish and Submergent Plant Species of Conservation Value Potentially Occurring within the EA Project Area (based on background information) Table 3 Summary of Water Quality Results Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 5

6 Table 4 Summary of Dissolved Oxygen and Secchi Disk Readings from the Navigation Channel Table 5 Site Fish Community Boat Electrofishing Results (200) Table 6 Summary of Boat Electrofishing Results from Site 2 (200) Table 7 Site 3 Fish Community Boat Electrofishing Results (200) Table 8 Site 4 Fish Community Boat Electrofishing Results (200) Table 9 Site 5 Fish Community Boat Electrofishing Results (200) Table 0 Site 6 Fish Community Boat Electrofishing Results (200) Table Site 7 Fish Community Boat Electrofishing Results (200) Table 2 Site 8 Fish Community Boat Electrofishing Results (200) Table 3 Site C Fish Community Results (200) Table 4 Site D Fish Community Results (200) Table 5 Site E Fish Community Results (200) Table 6 Site 9 Fish Community Boat Electrofishing Results (200)... 6 Table 7 Site 0 Fish Community Boat Electrofishing Results (200) Table 8 Site Fish Community Boat Electrofishing Results (200) Table 9 Site 2 Fish Community Boat Electrofishing Results (200) Table 20 List of Fish Species and their Habitat Use within the Project Area Table 2 Summary of Change in Aquatic Vegetation Table 22 Determining the Scale of Negative Effect Table 23 Determining the Scale of Sensitivity of Fish and fish Habitat List of Photographs Photo Looking south along the west shoreline at Site A, July 20, Photo 2 Looking north from Site A, July 20, Photo 3 Looking offshore from Site A, July 20, Photo 4 Looking northwest at the shoreline at Site B, July 20, Photo 5 Looking at the shoreline at Site B, July 20, Photo 6 Looking offshore at Site B, July 20, Photo 7 Looking towards the shoreline from Site, July Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 6

7 Photo 8 Looking at the aquatic vegetation at Site, July 20, Photo 9 Looking towards the shoreline from Site 2, July 20, Photo 0 Looking towards Sites 2 and 3, the flat area is extremely dense aquatic vegetation, October 8, Photo Looking towards the end of Site 3 (near red flags), October 8, Photo 2 Looking towards Site 3 (flat area is densely vegetation, area with small chop is the marina s boat channel) October 8, Photo 3 Looking north towards Site 4, again flat area is densely vegetated, October 8, Photo 4 Looking east across Site 5, October 8, Photo 5 Looking north towards Site 7, October 8, Photo 6 Looking at aquatic vegetation present throughout the area, October 8, Photo 7 Looking north along shoreline at Site C, July 20, Photo 8 Looking north at Site C, July 20, Photo 9 Looking south along the shoreline at Site C, water levels are much lower than summer sampling. October 8, Photo 20 Looking at the shoreline of Site D, July 20, Photo 2 Looking south at the shoreline of Site D, October 8, Photo 22 Looking south along the shoreline at Site E, July 20, Photo 23 Looking south at Site E, July 20, Photo 24 Looking south at Site E, October 8, Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 7

8 .0 INTRODUCTION The City of Kingston has initiated an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the need for and feasibility of implementing additional transportation capacity across the Cataraqui River within the city boundaries. The EA is proceeding as a Schedule C Class EA as per the Ontario Municipal Class EA process. It must also address the federal EA framework as per the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The EA process is being undertaken in two stages. Stage focused on the needs assessment and a number of river crossing options within a study area extending from the LaSalle Causeway in the south to Highway 40 in the north. Stage recommended a bridge crossing at John Counter Boulevard and Gore Road as the preferred option (Figure ). In May 200, the City of Kingston authorized that Stage 2 of the EA proceed which will complete the EA. Stage 2 will examine the potential impact of a crossing within the preferred corridor in more detail. Bowfin Environmental Consulting (Bowfin) has been retained to assist with the aquatic aspects of the EA study. For the purpose of this report the aquatic aspects included: fish and fish habitat. The terrestrial, amphibian, reptile and wetland aspects of the EA project will be dealt in a separate report prepared by others. The aquatic assessment during Stage of the EA study consisted of a background review of existing information within the broader EA study area. This Stage 2 EA study describes existing aquatic conditions within the preferred corridor and assesses potential project impacts on the aquatic environment, specifically: summary of the preferred corridor location; fisheries habitat and communities assessment methodologies; summary of the background review undertaken during Stage of the EA study; summary of the fisheries habitat and community assessments collected by Bowfin in 200 as part of Stage 2 of the EA study; and analysis of potential project impacts on the aquatic environment and suggested mitigations. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 8

9 . Summary of Proposed Bridge Location and Design.. Setting The Cataraqui River enters Lake Ontario at Kingston (Figure 2) and forms part of the Rideau Canal, a designated UNESCO World Heritage Site, National Historic Site, and Canadian Heritage River. The portion of the Cataraqui River extending from the LaSalle Causeway in the south to Highway 40 in the north is a wide, slow moving channel whose water levels are dictated by Lake Ontario. A buoyed navigation channel within the Cataraqui River starts at the LaSalle Causeway and extends northward to include the Rideau Canal. The fish habitat is considered to be warm-water, though salmonids are known to migrate through the area towards Kingston Mills. The Greater Cataraqui Marsh is also part of the Cataraqui River system and is a provincially significant wetland (PSW). Although the Greater Cataraqui Marsh is considered a riverine wetland system, it is also considered to be a coastal wetland, as its water levels are largely controlled by Lake Ontario. The wetland is extensive, extending from south of Belle Island in the Inner Harbour to just north of Highway 40, and affects the preferred corridor. The PSW vegetation communities include both emergent and submergent communities. The emergent (cattail dominated) community is located north and outside of the project area. It is noted that with the exception of a few channels, this emergent marsh has limited fish access. The navigable boat channel is excluded from the wetland, as are a couple of minor deviations from the channel and a route on the west side that represents a dredged access route from the Rideau Canal navigation corridor to the Music Marina near the foot of John Counter Boulevard. The wetland is listed as having a regional significance in terms of fish spawning and rearing potential (i.e. northern pike and baitfish are listed). The Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (or ANSI s), which are areas having identified life science or earth science values, are focused on the emergent cattail marsh as well as the buffering woodlands on both sides of the Cataraqui River north of John Counter Boulevard. The substrate along the shorelines includes: bedrock, boulders, cobbles, gravels and fines. Some areas are hardened with large boulders and/or rip rap. The shorelines within the EA project area include a variety of riparian vegetation types such as: wetlands, forested, manicured parkland with scattered trees, and manicured grass to the water s edge. The shorelines are exposed to wave action from boats passing through the navigation channel. Some examples of the vegetation found along the shoreline include: American elm, crack willow, Manitoba maple, Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 9

10 sugar maple, oak, honeysuckle, European buckthorn, common cattail, common burdock, staghorn sumac, wild carrot, riverbank grape, sweet clover, and reed canary grass. The preferred bridge corridor is situated just upstream of Belle Island at a section of the Cataraqui River that is approximately km wide (Figure ). The section is relatively shallow, with the exception of the buoyed navigation channel, with depths at normal water levels typically ranging from about.5 m over the majority of the section to approximately 4.5 m depth in the channel. The channel is located near the east shoreline. Outside of the channel, the aquatic vegetation growth is extremely dense with the substrate consisting of soft unconsolidated muck. The site is utilized by pleasure craft boaters, canoeist and kayakers as well as commercial fishermen. Within the study area, the west shore is dominated by cultural influences, including a public boat launch, the Music Marina, single dwellings, light industries, the River Park townhouse development and the Village On The River apartments. The east shore is also developed however there is a wider natural buffer between the river and the cultural uses. The developments include the Pittsburgh Branch of the Kingston Frontenac Public Library (Gore Road Library) and the Point St. Mark neighbourhood. The Rideau Marina is also located on the east bank of the Cataraqui River, just south of the preferred corridor. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 0

11 Figure Location of the Environmental Assessment Project Area Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page

12 2.0 METHODOLOGY The potential impacts to the fish and fish habitat were assessed by Bowfin through a review of background information in 2009 during Stage of the EA and field work completed in 200 as part of Stage 2 of the EA. The 200 field work included habitat description and fish community sampling within the preferred corridor. 2. Review of Background Information Stage The review of background information was conducted in 2009 during Stage of the EA study (Figure 2). This review included information from various agencies, consultant reports on the general area and a search of the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) and Environment Canada Species at Risk databases. Historical information was requested from Department of Fisheries and Oceans - Prescott Office (DFO), Parks Canada (PC), Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) Peterborough and Kingston Districts, and Lake Ontario Management Unit (LOMU). Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 2

13 Figure 2 Location of Preferred Corridor Study Area Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 3

14 2.2 Habitat Description Stage 2 Stage of the EA study recommended a bridge crossing at John Counter Boulevard and Gore Road as the preferred option (Figure ). Consequently, the study area for this Stage 2 EA report consists of the preferred corridor and the adjacent 500 m upstream and downstream areas (Figure 2). In order to assess the potential impacts associated with the proposed bridge crossing, the aquatic habitat within this area was described (Figure 3). The study area was divided into three zones: west side, mid channel and east side. Information on the fish habitat was collected through shoreline and offshore transects and by cruising through the area with Humminbird side scan sonar. Five shoreline transects were created (two on the west side and three on the east side). The shoreline transects consisted of establishing transects perpendicular to the shoreline and wading out until the water depth reached m. Information on the substrate, aquatic vegetation and available cover was recorded at every metre interval. This information was used to create profile figures outlining the habitat along the shoreline. Twelve offshore transects were established (four transects within each of the three zones), with each transect varying from m. The fish habitat description along the offshore transects was based on the methodologies described in Productive Capacity of Littoral Habitats in the Great Lakes: Field Sampling Procedures ( ) by Valere (996). This includes the collection of the following information: aquatic vegetation community description, riparian vegetation description, shore substrate, presence/absence and description of structure, topography (onshore and offshore), and a description of the shoreline development and transformations. The remainder of the offshore area was systematically surveyed using the Humminbird side scan sonar to gather information on the channel depths, substrate and structure. The information was ground-truthed using an Atlantis underwater video and a small grab. The information collected from the offshore transects and during the Humminbird survey were combined to produce a map to illustrate the habitat types encountered within the preferred corridor. Water quality data (dissolved oxygen, temperature, turbidity) was also recorded. In addition, as requested by PC, samples of pondweed (Potamogeton sp.) were collected from each transect, due to the potential for Ogden s Pondweed (Potamogeton ogdenii) to occur. The samples were brought back to the lab and identified under the microscope. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 4

15 2.3 Fish Community Sampling Fish community sampling was conducted in order to supplement information obtained during the background review and to document the seasonal use of the available habitat. The fish community was sampled using a boat electroshocker and bag seine net. The boat electrofishing was completed along the twelve offshore transects and the seine netting along the shoreline transects (discussed above). The boat electrofisher consisted of a 6.4 m Jon boat outfitted with a 5.0 Smith-Root GPP. Boat sampling was completed during the night on April 2, July 9 and October 7, 200. Note that the presence of docks and fishing nets prevented sampling within the east zone south of the preferred corridor. Sampling was also restricted during the summer and fall due to dense aquatic vegetation. The seine netting was completed at three of the five shoreline transects. The location and number of seine netting sites was restricted due to the dense aquatic vegetation especially on the west bank and the rocky shoreline on the east bank. The seine net is 8.3 m long by.8 m high with a.5 m by.2 m bag. The mesh size is 0.4 cm. Seine netting was completed during the day at four sites on July 20 and October 8, 200. One to three passes were made per site depending on the efficiency of the seine net at each site. Fish were kept in large holding tubs between passes. The holding tubs were covered and fresh water was added as needed. All fish were identified, measured [fork length (FL) or total length (TL) depending on the species] and released prior to continuing to the next site. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 5

16 Figure 3 Location of Sites within Study Area Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 6

17 3.0 STAGE BACKGROUND REVIEW SUMMARY 3. Fish Habitat and Community For contextual purposes, the following is a summary of the information obtained from the agencies consulted in 2009 as part of Stage of the EA study. DFO, PC and CRCA officials had little information on the fisheries within the EA project area. However, PC officials had an assessment report on the Greater Cataraqui Marsh that was prepared as part of the Highway 40 expansion project. Similarly, while the Central Cataraqui Region Natural Heritage Strategy prepared by the CRCA did not focus on fish habitat, it did indicate that bass spawning occurred towards the north end of the EA project area (CRCA 2006). In addition, the OMNR provided the following information on fish spawning and migrations within the EA project area: Chinook and Coho salmon are known to migrate from Lake Ontario to Kingston Mills; yellow perch migrate and spawn during the spring in the Cataraqui River; northern pike spawn during the spring in the Cataraqui River; there is a potential for muskellunge to utilize the Cataraqui River for spawning during the spring however none have ever been identified to occur within the Cataraqui River; sunfish and crappie migrate and spawn in the Cataraqui River during late spring early summer; American eel (an endangered species) migrate through the EA project area; longnose gar have been observed spawning near the EA project area; largemouth bass spawn in the general area during late spring early summer; and the fish community is considered a warm-water fish community and in-water construction would be subject to the in-water timing constraint of April to June 30, inclusive. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 7

18 A list of 26 species known or believed to be present in the Cataraqui River was developed using the information provided by the OMNR and available background reports (Bowfin 2007 and 2009). These species consist of common sport and panfish as well as forage fish species with the exception of the American eel. The American eel is listed as an endangered species provincially (see section 3.2 of this report). It is noted that the American eel was neither captured nor observed by Bowfin during sampling for this project (200) or others ( ). The preferred habitats and spawning requirements for these species are listed in Appendix A. The OMNR also indicated that since the EA project area is near Lake Ontario, a complete species list for Lake Ontario should be obtained from LOMU, which lists species and is provided in Appendix B. The list includes an additional 9 fish species with species at risk (SAR) or species of special concern rankings: lake sturgeon, grass pickerel, spotted gar, Atlantic salmon, lake chubsucker, bigmouth buffalo, bridle shiner, silver chub, and channel darter. Some of the species found on the Lake Ontario list would not likely occur in the Cataraqui River, such as deepwater sculpin. 3.2 Species at Risk (SAR) Endangered and threatened SAR are protected under provincial (Endangered Species Act) and federal (Species at Risk Act) legislation. The NHIC database provides information available to the public on those SAR that have been documented as occurring. It should be noted that not all information for all species is available to the public. Furthermore, the absence of a recording does not necessarily indicate that the species is absent from the area. To increase the likelihood that all potential species which may occur within the EA project area are considered, the NHIC search was extended to include the SAR lists for the nearby County of Frontenac and NTS map 3C8. Furthermore the OMNR was contacted for information. The original listed created by Bowfin (2009) as part of Stage of the EA study has been updated in this report to include any changes made to the database and/or species ranking. There were no SAR listed on the NHIC database as having been observed within the EA project area however, the American eel was suggested as potentially occurring by the OMNR (Personal Communication, Katie Novacek). The Environment Canada SAR website did not identify any fish, mussels or submergent plants as potentially occurring within the EA project area. Discussions with DFO confirmed that there were no SAR species listed for the EA project area (Personal Communication, Mark Scott). The review of information on the Frontenac County and the NTS map 3C8 and the list of fish species from the LOMU provided the potential for five Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 8

19 other species to potentially occur: lake sturgeon, spotted gar, lake chubsucker, pugnose shiner and channel darter. These species are highlighted on Table and discussed further below. Note a discussion of Ogden s pondweed is also included here at the request of PC officials, due to the potential for it to occur in the EA project area. Also note regarding Table, that species in bold font could potentially occur based on available habitat, but have not been recorded; and species in normal font are considered unlikely to occur. In regards to the latter, the lake chubsucker is not recorded as occurring within Lake Ontario or Kingston (Eakin 200), is sensitive to turbid waters and has not been recorded within the Cataraqui River. As such, this species is considered unlikely to occur within the project area. Next, the channel darter has also not been recorded within Lake Ontario but has been within the inland waters north of Kingston. However the habitat requirements of this species are not met within the project area as such this species is also considered unlikely to occur. Table Summary of Fish and Submergent Plant Species at Risk Identified as Potentially Occurring within the EA Project Area or Lake Ontario (based on background information) Common Name Scientific Name SRANK Provincial Federal Preferred Habitat Status Status Fish Lake Sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens S2 THR Bottoms of lakes and large rivers. Spotted Gar Lepisosteus oculatus S THR THR Occurs in streams, sloughs, lakes, and swamps. Lake Chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta S2 THR THR Small, shallow, warm, weedy ponds. Pugnose Shiner Notropis anogenus S2 END END Quiet areas of large lakes, stagnant channels, and large rivers primarily on sand bottoms with organic detritus. American Eel Anguilla rostrata S? END Near cover over muddy, silty bottoms of lakes, rivers and creeks. Channel Darter Percina copelandi S2 THR THR Sand and gravel beaches and bars, where the current is slow or sluggish. Aquatic Plants Odgen s pondweed Potamogeton ogdenii SH END END Shallow slow moving systems, that is typically highly alkaline. (Crow and Hellquist 2000, NHIC databases 2009, Personal Communication, Katie Novacek, Scott and Crossman 998, White 200) Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 9

20 S Critically Imperilled S2 Imperilled S3 Vulnerable THR Threatened END - Endangered American Eel The American eel is listed as Endangered by OMNR with an S? ranking. The? indicates that OMNR is uncertain of the ranking. The S ranking signifies it is considered critically imperilled in Ontario by NHIC and Endangered signifies that it is at risk of becoming Extinct or Extirpated in Ontario. The American eel breeds in the Sargasso Sea and matures in freshwater rivers in North America, including the St. Lawrence River (Becker 983, DFO 2008, Scott and Crossman 998). It migrates into the St. Lawrence River during the spring and then migrates downstream during the fall, spending 5 to 20 years in freshwater (Becker 983, DFO 2008, Scott and Crossman 998). American eels are identified as migrating through the project area (Personal Communication, Katie Novacek) and as such are considered to occur within the project area. Lake Sturgeon Lake sturgeon is ranked as Threatened provincially with an S3 ranking signifying that it is rare to uncommon in Ontario. Lake sturgeon spawn in fast flowing water such as rapids. The adults are typically captured on shoals with depths of m and the young on gravelly or sandy shoals at the mouths of rivers (Scott and Crossman 979). The fish habitat located within the project area likely does not provide habitat for lake sturgeon and none were captured during the 200 field sampling. As such, it is not considered likely to occur within the project area. Spotted Gar Spotted gar is listed as Threatened and ranked as S signifying it is considered critically imperilled in Ontario. The spotted gar can be found is warm waters that are shallow, slow and contain dense aquatic vegetation (Scott and Crossman, Eakin 200). The nearest recording of this species is in the Bay of Quinte. The habitat within the project area is suitable for this species. However there is no data indicating that it is or has ever been found within the Cataraqui River and none were documented during the200 field sampling. As such, it is not considered likely to occur within the project area. Pugnose Shiner Pugnose shiner is considered to be an Endangered species both provincially and federally with an S2 ranking. The S2 ranking signifies that the species is considered to be imperilled within Ontario. The pugnose shiner has been recorded in the upper reaches of the St. Lawrence River and in eastern Lake Ontario. This omnivore is typically found in quiet areas of large lakes and Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 20

21 rivers as well as in stagnant waters with aquatic vegetation, particularly stonewort. The preferred substrate appears to be sand and organic detritus (COSEWIC 2002). This species also seems to be limited by several factors, including: turbidity, loss of habitat along the shoreline and loss of near-shore native macrophytes, increases in introduced species, and increases in abundance and diversity of predators and competitors (COSEWIC 2002). Based on the preferred habitat type, there is a potential for this species to occur within the project area however none were captured during the 200 field sampling. Ogden s Pondweed Ogden s pondweed is listed as Endangered both provincially and federally. While there are no records of Ogden s pondweed occurring within the vicinity of the project area, this species was added to the potential species list at the request of PC. Ogden s pondweed has historically been recorded as occurring at Davis Lock and Murphys Point which are both on the Rideau Canal system (approximately 45 km and 75 km upstream, respectively). There have been no records of this species in the past 20 years despite recent searches in 2005 and 2006 (White 200). As such, this species is considered possibly extirpated. The species habitat tends to be slow moving shallow areas with alkaline water (White 200). While the project area provides the slow moving shallow requirements the ph readings taken during the habitat assessment indicated that the water is near neutral (ph ). Samples of similar looking pondweed (i.e. flat-stem pondweed) were taken from the transects and all were confirmed to be flat-stem pondweed. As such Ogden s pondweed is not considered to occur within the project area. 3.3 Species of Conservation Value Species of conservation value include those species listed as special concern (SC) or ranked as S-S3. The background review identified 4 fish species and 2 aquatic plant species as potentially occurring: grass pickerel, greater redhorse, silver chub, bridle shiner, prickly naiad and southern naiad. These species are highlighted on Table 2 and discussed further below. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 2

22 Table 2 Summary of Fish and Submergent Plant Species of Conservation Value Potentially Occurring within the EA Project Area (based on background information) Common Name Scientific Name SRANK Provincial Status Fish Grass Pickerel Greater Redhorse Silver Chub Esox americanus vermiculatus Moxostoma valenciennesi Macrhybopsis storeriana Federal Status Preferred Habitat S3 SC SC Lakes, backwaters and sluggish pools of streams with mud bottom, aquatic vegetation and clear water. S3 Little is known. Spawns in fast flowing waters. After spawn can be found in shallow slow moving areas. S2 SC SC Pools of slow moving streams having clean sand and gravel bottoms. Bridle Shiner Notropis bifrenatus S2 SC SC Ponds, lakes and sluggish mud-bottomed pools of creeks and small to medium rivers with abundant submergent vegetation. Plants Prickly Naiad Najas marina S Salt springs, brackish or highly alkaline waters. Southern Naiad Najas guadalupensis S3 Alkaline, brackish, and saline ponds, lakes, streams and coastal ponds. (Crow and Hellquist 2000, NHIC databases 2009, Personal Communication, Katie Novacek, Scott and Crossman 998) S Critically Imperilled S2 Imperilled S3 Vulnerable S4 Apparently Secure S5 - Secure SC Special Concern (formerly Vulnerable) Grass Pickerel Grass pickerel is listed as special concern and ranked as S3 signifying that it is rare to uncommon in Ontario. Grass pickerel typically spawn during the spring and occasionally during the fall within the flooded margins of marsh habitats in streams (Scott and Crossman 979). They are typically found in quiet weedy areas with muddy substrate of large streams (Scott and Crossman 979). The nearest known sightings of grass pickerel are from the St. Lawrence River Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 22

23 near Gananoque. No grass pickerel were captured during the 200 field sampling and there are no records of it occurring within the Cataraqui River. As such, it is considered unlikely to occur within the project area. Greater Redhorse The greater redhorse is listed as special concern and ranked as S3 signifying that it is rare to uncommon in Ontario. No greater redhorse spawning habitat was observed and only a few white suckers were captured during the 200 field sampling. The greater redhorse is not considered likely to occur within the project area. Silver Chub The silver chub is listed as special concern and ranked as S2 signifying that it is very rare in Ontario. This species was listed in the background literature provided by the LOMU (Cudmore- Vokey and Crossman 2000). The silver chub can be found in sandy or silty habitat of slow mowing waters, typically in association with the mouths of large rivers or along the shorelines of lakes (Eakins 200). This species is recorded as occurring within Lake Erie (Eakins 200). The habitat within the project area is potentially suitable for this species however none were captured during the 200 field sampling and there are no recordings within the Cataraqui River. As such, they are considered unlikely to occur within the project area. Bridle Shiner The bridle shiner is listed as special concern and ranked as S2 signifying that it is very rare in Ontario. There is little known of bridle shiners. It appears that they spawn from spring to summer and inhabit clear quiet streams with dense submerged vegetation and substrate consisting of silt or silt/sand (Scott and Crossman 979). The habitat within the project area is potentially suitable for this species however none were captured during the 200 field sampling and there are no recordings within the Cataraqui River. As such, they are considered unlikely to occur within the project area. Prickly and Southern Naiads The prickly naiad is listed as may be at risk under the NHIC Ontario general status and has an S ranking. The S ranking signifies that NHIC considers the species to be critically imperilled due to low numbers of sightings (<5) and/or factors which cause the species to be sensitive. The southern naiad has an S3 ranking. The S3 ranking signifies that NHIC considers the species to be vulnerable in Ontario due to its low population. No naiad species were observed during the 200 field visits. These species are not considered likely to occur within the project area. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 23

24 4.0 SITE INVESTIGATION RESULTS As described in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, field work was completed during the spring, summer and fall within the preferred corridor. The water quality results were taken from one location during each visit. The results from the water quality data are summarized below. This is followed by a summary of the habitat and fish community. 4. Water Quality Results As shown on Table 3, the water temperature was. C during the evening of the spring visit, averaged 25 C during the summer visit and 7 C during the fall visit. The conductivity varied between 97 µs and 275 µs; total dissolved solids were between 99 ppm and 39 ppm; and ph between 7.69 and Dissolved oxygen (DO) and secchi disk readings were recorded within the navigation channel during the summer and fall visits. As expected there was little difference between the surface and bottom DO readings (9.05 mg/l at the surface and 8.46 mg/l at the bottom during the summer; 0.2 mg/l at the surface and 9.23 mg/l at bottom during the fall). As shown on Table 4, the secchi disk readings were similar during the summer and fall visits (visibility was 70% of the water column in summer and 68% in fall). Table 3 Summary of Water Quality Results Date Time Air Temp. ( C) Water Temp ( C) Conductivity (µs) Total Dissolved Solids (Ppm) 2-Apr * Jul Jul Jul Oct Oct ph Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 24

25 Table 4 Summary of Dissolved Oxygen and Secchi Disk Readings from the Navigation Channel DATE Depth WATER TEMP ( C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 20-Jul-0 surface Jul-0 00 cm Jul cm Oct-0 surface Oct-0 00cm Oct-0 87cm (bottom) Depth (cm) Total Water Depth (cm) Secchi Percent of Visibility of Water Column Habitat and Fish Community Results As shown on Figure 4, the aquatic habitat was divided into three zones: west side, mid channel and east side. The habitat assessment was undertaken on July 20, 200 and during the fall 200 sampling. The fish community sampling was done on April 2, July 9 and October 7, 200 using the boat electrofisher and on July 20 and October 8, 200 with the seine net. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 25

26 Figure 4 Aquatic Vegetation Map of the Preferred Corridor Study Area Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 26

27 4.2. West Side On the west side, shoreline habitat transects (completed by wading and by boat) was provided for two sites (Transect Sites A and B). No seine netting was completed due to the very dense floating and submergent aquatic vegetation. The offshore area habitat and community were sampled at four locations (Sampling Sites -4). It is noted that the location of the offshore sites had to be moved further to the east during the fall sampling due to the large increase in density and height of the aquatic vegetation. Transect Site A Shoreline Habitat Description (Photos -3) The Site A shoreline transect was completed to the south of the public boat launch and adjacent to Sampling Site 2 (Figure 4). Observations were made by boat. This site was located within a dense patch of white water-lily which started near the Music Marina and continued south in the bay. The thick white water-lily and dense stonewort combined with soft substrates prevented walking through the area. A depth of.7 m was reached 22 m from shore. The substrate consisted of unconsolidated muck. In-stream cover was provided by the very dense (00%) floating and submergent vegetation, as illustrated on Figure 5. Photo Looking south along the west shoreline at Site A, July 20, 200 Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 27

28 Photo 2 Looking north from Site A, July 20, 200 Photo 3 Looking offshore from Site A, July 20, 200 Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 28

29 Figure 5 Site A - Shoreline Habitat Profile Transect Site B Shoreline Habitat Description (Photos 4-6) The Site B shoreline transect was completed at the upstream end of Sampling Site 4 (Figure 4). The shoreline was rocky and vegetated with reed canary grass, cattails, flowering rush, buckthorn, nannyberry and staghorn sumac. The slope was gradual. The substrate was firm with fines and cobbles. Cover included algae, blow (aquatic vegetation which has been uprooted and blown into shore), boulders and aquatic vegetation. The aquatic vegetation began approximately 3.5 m from shore and consisted of tapegrass (20% cover; to surface). The amount of vegetation increased further offshore reaching 60% cover and 75% of the column height by 7 m from shore (milfoil, Canada waterweed and tapegrass), as illustrated on Figure 6. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 29

30 Photo 4 Looking northwest at the shoreline at Site B, July 20, 200 Photo 5 Looking at the shoreline at Site B, July 20, 200 Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 30

31 Photo 6 Looking offshore at Site B, July 20, 200 Figure 6 Site B - Shoreline Habitat Profile Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 3

32 Sampling Site Offshore Habitat Description and Boat Electrofishing Results (Photos 7-8) Sampling Site was located on the south side of the project area (Figure 4). The site length was 50 m. The substrate was unconsolidated fines. The site was densely vegetated with Eurasian milfoil, tapegrass, pondweed and white water-lily. The water depth averaged.7 m. The aquatic vegetation provided 50-00% cover and had reached the surface by the July 20 th visit. By the fall visit the vegetation reached the surface and provided 00% cover. Photo 7 Looking towards the shoreline from Site, July Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 32

33 Photo 8 Looking at the aquatic vegetation at Site, July 20, 200 As shown on Table 5, during the spring sampling a total of 74 fish representing species were captured: northern pike, golden shiner, blacknose shiner, yellow bullhead, brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, black crappie, yellow perch, and brook silverside. The three most dominant fish species during the spring sampling were pumpkinseed (72%), yellow perch (3%) and bluegill (5%). The summer sampling caught 59 fish from 5 species: golden shiner, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, and yellow perch. This community was slightly different with yellow perch (47%) representing the dominant species followed by bluegill (5%) and largemouth bass (2%). The young-of-the-year (YOY) sportfish captured were pumpkinseed, bluegill and largemouth bass. This site was moved 68 m to the east during the fall visit due to the density and height of the aquatic vegetation. The fall catch consisted of 97 fish representing 8 species: golden shiner, blackchin shiner, yellow bullhead, brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, and yellow perch. Many fish were missed due to dense aquatic vegetation. The fall catch was Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 33

34 represented by the same species as the spring sampling [i.e. pumpkinseed (49%), yellow perch (2%) and bluegill (8%)]. YOY bluegill were captured. Table 5 Site Fish Community Boat Electrofishing Results (200) Common Name Scientific Name Number of Fish [Size Range (FL(mm)] Spring Summer Fall northern pike Esox lucius 2 (73-404) golden shiner blackchin shiner blacknose shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas Notropis heterodon Notropis heterolepis 7 (75-92) (54) yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis (245) brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus (220) pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus bluegill Lepomis macrochirus largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 25 (33-26) 9 (40-55) 4 (58-82) (68) yellow perch Perca flavescens 22 (84-78) brook silverside Labidesthese sicculus (6) (42) 4 (23-34) 9 (24-8) 7 (43-23) 28 (42-4) 4 (57-2) 2 (43-53) (24) (352) 48 (82-75) 7 (30-8) 4 (87-390) 20 (52-52) Total Number of Fish Total Number of Species 5 8 Electrofishing Effort (seconds) Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 34

35 Sampling Site 2 Offshore Habitat Description and Boat Electrofishing Results (Photos 9-0) Sampling Site 2 was located approximately 64 m to the north of Sampling Site (Figure 4). The site length was 40 m. The substrate was unconsolidated fines. The water depth averaged.4 m. The site was densely vegetated with milfoil, tapegrass, Richardson pondweed, water-lily and Canada waterweed. The aquatic vegetation provided 50-00% cover and had reached 30-75% of the column height by the July 20 th visit. The shoreline was protected with rocks and was mowed to the water s edge. By the fall visit, the vegetation had become very dense (>80% cover), had reached the surface and was dominated by tapegrass. Photo 9 Looking towards the shoreline from Site 2, July 20, 200 Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 35

36 Photo 0 Looking towards Sites 2 and 3, the flat area is extremely dense aquatic vegetation, October 8, 200 As shown on Table 6, the spring catch included 63 fish from 0 species: northern pike, golden shiner, blacknose shiner, brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, black crappie, yellow perch and brook silverside. It was noted that many sunfish were missed. The spring fish community was primarily composed of pumpkinseed (55%), bluegill (36%) and yellow perch (4%). During the summer sampling, 8 fish were captured from 7 species: golden shiner, brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, yellow perch and brook silverside. The same top three species, from the spring catch, dominated this catch [i.e. pumpkinseed (46%), yellow perch (36%) and bluegill (7%)]. The YOY sportfish catch consisted of pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass and yellow perch. This site was moved 55 m to the east during the fall visit due to the density and height of the aquatic vegetation. The fall catch consisted of 69 fish from 8 species: northern pike, golden shiner, brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, black crappie and yellow perch. Again, the same top three species, from the spring and summer catches, dominated this catch as well [i.e. pumpkinseed (39%), bluegill (33%) and yellow perch (2%)]. YOY pumpkinseed and bluegill were captured. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 36

37 Table 6 Summary of Boat Electrofishing Results from Site 2 (200) Common Name Scientific Name Number of Fish [Size Range (FL, mm)] Spring Summer Fall northern pike Esox lucius 2 (36-666) (230) golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 3 (8-9) 2 (33-37) 3 (6-04) blacknose shiner Notropis heterolepis 2 (4-82) brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 4 (45-38) (245) 4 (30-257) sunfish sp. (0) pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 89 (37-23) 37 (22-9) 27 (4-95) bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 36 (33-36) 6 (2-4) 23 (35-32) largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 4 (59-397) 4 (42-36) 2 (7-65) black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus (42) (98) yellow perch Perca flavescens 8 (9-0) 29 (44-75) 8 (58-57) brook silverside Labidesthese sicculus 4 (60-74) (44) Total Number of Fish Total Number of Species Electrofishing Effort (seconds) Sampling Site 3 Offshore Habitat Description and Boat Electrofishing Summary (Photos 0-2) Sampling Site 3 was located 50 m upstream of Sampling Site 2 and included the area adjacent to the Music Marina (Figure 4). The site length was 40 m. The substrate was unconsolidated fines. The water depth averaged.5 m. The site was densely vegetated with milfoil, coontail, Richardson s pondweed, curly pondweed, Canada waterweed, tapegrass and white water-lily. Algae was present within this transect. The aquatic vegetation provided 40-50% cover and had Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 37

38 reached 75% of the column height or to surface by the July 20 th visit. The shoreline was rocky with cattails and deciduous trees. By the fall visit, the vegetation had reached the surface with up to 00% cover and was dominated by milfoil, Canada waterweed and stonewort. The area immediately adjacent to the Music Marina contained less vegetation. Curly pondweed was also observed at this site during the spring visit. Photo Looking towards the end of Site 3 (near red flags), October 8, 200 Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 38

39 Photo 2 Looking towards Site 3 (flat area is densely vegetation, area with small chop is the marina s boat channel) October 8, 200 As shown on Table 7, the spring sampling consisted of 55 fish from 2 species: bowfin, northern pike, central mudminnow, golden shiner, blackchin shiner, brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, black crappie, yellow perch and brook silverside. One northern pike was observed but not captured. This spring community was mainly characterized by pumpkinseed (50%), bluegill (20%) and golden shiner (6%). During the summer sampling, a total of 25 fish representing 6 species were captured: brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, yellow perch and brook silverside. The top three species were slightly different from the spring sampling [i.e. pumpkinseed (62%), yellow perch (20%) and bluegill (6%)]. YOY pumpkinseed and largemouth bass were captured. This site needed to be moved upstream towards the Music Marina during the fall visit due to the density and height of the aquatic vegetation. The fall catch included 94 fish from species: northern pike, golden shiner, bluntnose minnow, yellow bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, black crappie, yellow perch, Johnny darter and brook silverside. The fall community was similar to the summer community [i.e. yellow perch (35%), bluegill (27%) and pumpkinseed (26%)]. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 39

40 Table 7 Site 3 Fish Community Boat Electrofishing Results (200) Common Name Scientific Name Number of Fish [Size Range (FL, mm)] Spring Summer Fall bowfin Amia calva (7) northern pike Esox lucius 7 (35-364) 2 ( ) central mudminnow Umbra limi 2 (44-52) golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas (72-92) (62) blackchin shiner Notropis heterodon 2 (5-55) bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus 2 (4-53) yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis (25) brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus (250) 7 ( ) pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 78 (33-67) 78 (20-25) 5 (4-5) bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 3 (30-93) 8 (92-25) 53 (30-25) largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 4 (62-55) 3 (52-20) 2 (76-03) black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 3 (4-27) (24) yellow perch Perca flavescens 9 (87-47) 25 (5-42) 68 (6-205) johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum (6) brook silverside Labidesthese sicculus 6 (64-8) 4 (40-5) 2 (65-85) Total Number of Fish Total Number of Species 2 6 Electrofishing Effort (seconds) Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 40

41 Sampling Site 4 Offshore Habitat Description and Boat Electrofishing Summary (Photo 3) Sampling Site 4 was located approximately 88 m to the north of Sampling Site 3 (Figure 4). The site length was 60 m. The substrate was unconsolidated fines. The water depth averaged.5 m. The site was densely vegetated with milfoil, tapegrass, white water-lily, Canada waterweed, coontail, and bladderwort. The aquatic vegetation provided 90% cover and had reached the surface by the July 20 th visit. There was some rock protection along the banks. Photo 3 Looking north towards Site 4, again flat area is densely vegetated, October 8, 200. As shown on Table 8, the spring catch consisted of 07 fish representing 0 species: northern pike, golden shiner, brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, black crappie, yellow perch and brook silverside. The most abundant species were pumpkinseed (56%), yellow perch (28%) and golden shiner (5%). During the summer sampling, 06 fish representing 7 species were captured: golden shiner, blackchin shiner, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, yellow perch and brook silverside. The dominant species were similar to the spring catch with the exception that golden shiner was no longer well- represented and was replaced by brook silverside [i.e. pumpkinseed (42%), Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 4

42 yellow perch (35%) and brook silverside (8%)]. YOY pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass and yellow perch were captured. This site was moved 22 m to the east during the fall visit due to the density and height of the aquatic vegetation. The fall catch consisted of 55 fish representing 7 species: brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, black crappie, yellow perch and brook silverside. Again the main species caught were slightly different from the previous catches. Yellow perch (25%) continued to be prominent along with two different species, bluegill (36%) and brown bullhead (3%). YOY bluegill, brown bullhead and largemouth bass were captured. Table 8 Site 4 Fish Community Boat Electrofishing Results (200) Common Name Scientific Name Number of Fish [Size Range (FL, mm)] Spring Summer Fall northern pike Esox lucius (373) golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 5 (72-87) 4 (40-02) blackchin shiner Notropis heterodon 5 (43-58) brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 3 ( ) 8 (46-259) pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 60 (58-47) 44 (27-36) 6 (00-24) bluegill Lepomis macrochirus (03) 6 (2-25) 20 (30-50) smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu (83) largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 3 (95-304) (65) 4 (60-78) black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus (38) (98) yellow perch Perca flavescens 30 (73-92) 37 (45-55) 4 (60-62) brook silverside Labidesthese sicculus 2 (70-82) 9 (25-55) 2 (76-78) Total Number of Fish Total Number of Species Electrofishing Effort (seconds) Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 42

43 4.2.2 Mid Channel As shown earlier on Figure 4, the mid channel was sampled using the boat electrofisher at four locations, Sampling Sites 5-8. Sampling Site 5 Offshore Habitat Description and Boat Electrofishing Summary (Photo 4) Sampling Site 5 was located downstream of the other mid-channel sites approximately 80 m to the north of the Belle Island shoreline (Figure 4). The site length was 40 m. The substrate was unconsolidated fines. The site was densely vegetated with tapegrass, Eurasian milfoil, pondweed, and Canada waterweed. The water depth averaged.5 m. The aquatic vegetation provided 60-90% cover and had reached 50-90% of the column height some to the surface by the July 20 th visit. By the fall visit, the aquatic vegetation had reached the surface and provided 00% cover. The dense milfoil present within this site made sampling difficult. Photo 4 Looking east across Site 5, October 8, 200 Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 43

44 During the spring visit, a large number of ripe yellow perch as well as their eggs were observed throughout this site. As shown on Table 9, a total of 73 fish were captured from four species: golden shiner, pumpkinseed, bluegill and yellow perch. The dominant fish species were yellow perch (55%) and pumpkinseed (38%). The summer catch consisted of 8 fish from five species: golden shiner, pumpkinseed, bluegill, yellow perch and brook silverside. The most common species were pumpkinseed (40%), golden shiner (2%), and yellow perch and brook silverside (9% each). YOY pumpkinseed and yellow perch were captured. During the fall sampling, a total of 47 fish from 7 species were captured: golden shiner, brown bullhead, banded killifish, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, and yellow perch. The dominant species were yellow perch (46%), pumpkinseed (29%) and bluegill (3%). YOY bluegill and largemouth bass were captured. Table 9 Site 5 Fish Community Boat Electrofishing Results (200) Common Name Scientific Name Number of Fish [Size Range (FL, mm)] Spring Summer Fall golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 2 (59-88) 7 (35-57) (56-73) brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 3 ( ) banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus (55) pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 65 (35-22) 32 (37-03) 43 (50-30) bluegill Lepomis macrochirus (00) 2 (75-02) 9 (33-2) largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 2 (82-70) yellow perch Perca flavescens 95 (62-78) 5 (48-33) 68 (55-8) brook silverside Labidesthese sicculus 5 (35-75) Total Number of Fish Total Number of Species Electrofishing Effort (seconds) Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 44

45 Sampling Site 6 Offshore Habitat Description and Boat Electrofishing Summary Sampling Site 6 was located approximately 58 m upstream of Sampling Site 5 (Figure 4). This site was 60 m long and included the dredged channel leading to/from the Music Marina on the western shore. The substrate was unconsolidated fines. The site was vegetated with Eurasian milfoil, tapegrass, pondweed, Canada waterweed, coontail and Richardson s pondweed. The water depth averaged.7 m. The aquatic vegetation provided 30-75% cover and had reached 30-75% of the column height by the July 20 th visit. Within the dredged channel, there was less cover (<5%-30%) and the column height was up to 75%. By the fall visit, the vegetation had reached the surface with abundant cover (>75% cover), though it remained poorer within the dredged channel. Ripe yellow perch and their eggs were also observed within this site during the spring visit. As shown on Table 0, there were 79 fish captured from 6 species: golden shiner, brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass and yellow perch. The most common species were pumpkinseed (53%), yellow perch (38%) and golden shiner (6%). During the summer visit, a total of 08 fish from 7 species were captured: golden shiner, brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, yellow perch and brook silverside. The dominant species were similar to the spring community [i.e. pumpkinseed (49%), brook silverside (22%) and yellow perch (9%)]. YOY pumpkinseed were captured. The fall sampling, 83 fish were captured from 9 species: golden shiner, blackchin shiner, brown bullhead, banded killifish, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, yellow perch, and brook silverside. The fall community was dominated by the same species as during the spring and summer sampling [yellow perch (43%), pumpkinseed (20%) and golden shiner (5%)]. YOY bluegill, largemouth bass and yellow perch were captured. Table 0 Site 6 Fish Community Boat Electrofishing Results (200) Common Name Scientific Name Number of Fish [Size Range (FL, mm)] Spring Summer Fall golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 0 (75-9) (53) 28 (60-7) blackchin shiner Notropis heterodon (58) brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus (5) (250) 3 ( ) banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus 2 (6) pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 94 (38-3) 53 (3-45) 37 (83-32) Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 45

46 Common Name Scientific Name Number of Fish [Size Range (FL, mm)] Spring Summer Fall bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 5 (65-85) 6 (75-08) 4 (33-27) largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides (54) 3 (29-35) 2 (0-22) yellow perch Perca flavescens 68 (58-78) 2 (53-84) 79 (55-32) brook silverside Labidesthese sicculus 23 (30-88) 7 (65-85) Total Number of Fish Total Number of Species Electrofishing Effort (seconds) Sampling Site 7 Offshore Habitat Description and Boat Electrofishing Summary (Photos 5-6) Sampling Site 7 was located approximately 93 m upstream of Sampling Site 6 (Figure 4). The site length was 60 m. The substrate was unconsolidated fines. The site was vegetated with tapegrass, pondweed, milfoil and Richardson s pondweed. The water depth averaged.6 m. The aquatic vegetation provided 80-90% cover and had reached 30-50% of the column height by the July 20 th visit. By the fall visit, the aquatic vegetation community was dominated by milfoil, extremely dense (at over 75% cover) and had reached the surface. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 46

47 Photo 5 Looking north towards Site 7, October 8, 200 Photo 6 Looking at aquatic vegetation present throughout the area, October 8, 200 Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 47

48 During the spring, ripe yellow perch and eggs were also observed within this site. As shown on Table, a total of 98 fish from 7 species were captured: northern pike, golden shiner, brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass and yellow perch. The community was dominated by yellow perch (75%), pumpkinseed (20%) and brown bullhead (2%). The summer catch consisted of 68 fish from 7 species: golden shiner, blackchin shiner, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, yellow perch and brook silverside. The most common species were pumpkinseed (37%), brook silverside (2%) and yellow perch (9%). YOY pumpkinseed, bluegill and largemouth bass were captured. During the fall only 26 fish from five species were captured: brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass and yellow perch. The netting was compromised due to the dense aquatic vegetation. The dominant species was yellow perch (73%). YOY bluegill and yellow perch were captured. Table Site 7 Fish Community Boat Electrofishing Results (200) Common Name Scientific Name Number of Fish [(Size Range (FL, mm)] Spring Summer Fall northern pike Esox lucius (358) golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas (60) (38) blackchin shiner Notropis heterodon (37) brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 4 (20-302) 2 ( ) pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 39 (44-5) 25 (28-20) (06) bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 2 (9-98) (33-4) 3 (32-39) largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 2 ( ) 3 (47-58) (75) yellow perch Perca flavescens 49 (66-77) 3 (02-77) 9 (53-39) brook silverside Labidesthese sicculus 4 (34-54) Total Number of Fish Total Number of Species Electrofishing Effort (seconds) Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 48

49 Sampling Site 8 Offshore Habitat Description and Boat Electrofishing Summary Sampling Site 8 was located approximately 92 m upstream of Sampling Site 7 (Figure 4). The site length was 60 m. The water depth averaged.4 m. The substrate was unconsolidated fines. The site was vegetated with tapegrass, pondweed, milfoil and Richardson s pondweed, coontail and Canada waterweed. The aquatic vegetation provided 80-70% cover and had reached 50% of the column height by the July 20 th visit. By the fall visit, the vegetation was dominated by milfoil and tapegrass. It was very dense and had reached the surface. As shown on Table 2, the spring sampling captured 95 fish from 5 species: golden shiner, brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill and yellow perch. The dominant species were yellow perch (62%) and pumpkinseed (29%). During the summer sampling, a total of 90 fish representing 0 species were captured: northern pike, white sucker, golden shiner, blackchin shiner, brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, yellow perch and brook silverside. The catch was dominated by pumpkinseed (33%) and yellow perch and brook silverside (20% each). YOY pumpkinseed and bluegill were captured. The fall catch included 6 fish from 9 species: bowfin, northern pike, common carp, brown bullhead, banded killifish, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, and yellow perch. The catch was dominated by yellow perch (75%). YOY bluegill, largemouth bass and yellow perch were captured. Table 2 Site 8 Fish Community Boat Electrofishing Results (200) Common Name Scientific Name Number of Fish [(Size Range (FL, mm)] Spring Summer Fall bowfin Amia calva (633) northern pike Esox lucius 2 ( ) (50) white sucker Catostomus commersoni (443) common carp Cyprinus carpio (35) golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 3 (82-87) 2 (35-99) blackchin shiner Notropis heterodon (5) brown bullhead Ameiurus 3 3 Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 49

50 Common Name Scientific Name Number of Fish [(Size Range (FL, mm)] Spring Summer Fall nebulosus (08-82) (245) (38-27) banded killifish Fundulus diaphanous 2 (4-48) pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 28 (52-68) 30 (44-) 3 (89-02) bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 2 (68-75) 6 (45-9) (28) largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides (33) 3 (96-80) yellow perch Perca flavescens 59 (6-56) 8 (57-68) 46 (56-9) brook silverside Labidesthese sicculus 8 (33-5) Total Number of Fish Total Number of Species Electrofishing Effort (seconds) East Side As shown earlier on Figure 4, along the eastern shoreline habitat transects (completed by wading) were established at Transect Sites C, D and E. Seine netting was completed at each transect site. The offshore area habitat and community were sampled at Sites 9-2. It is noted that during the fall visit, the weather conditions and improved visibility permitted the boat electrofishing transects to be moved slightly closer to shore. Transect Site C Shoreline Habitat Description and Seine Netting Summary (Photos 7-9) The Transect Site C shoreline was fully vegetated primarily by reed canary grass and broadleaved cattail. Other species included woolgrass, hedge bindweed, spotted jewelweed. There were no trees along the immediate shoreline but some crack willows further back. The shoreline had a steeper slope than at the other sites, reaching 0.94 m at a distance of 8 m from shore. There was some blow along the shoreline. As illustrated on Figure 7, emergents (cattails) were present along the first 2 m of the transect. Submergents were present beginning at 5 m from shore (with <30% cover and <30% column height). The submergent vegetation became denser past 6 m, reaching 70% cover and 75% of the column height by 8 m. The submergent vegetation consisted of tapegrass, Canada waterweed, pale water-milfoil, and flat-stem pondweed. The Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 50

51 substrate contained more boulders along the first 5 m followed by a mixture of boulders and fines at 7 m and changing to primarily fines by 8 m. The substrate was firm. The aquatic cover types included the aquatic vegetation, boulders and blow. The shoreline was protected with float quarry rocks at this location. Photo 7 Looking north along shoreline at Site C, July 20, 200. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 5

52 Photo 8 Looking north at Site C, July 20, 200 Photo 9 Looking south along the shoreline at Site C, water levels are much lower than summer sampling. October 8, 200 Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 52

53 Figure 7 Site C Shoreline Habitat Profile As shown on Table 3, during the summer a total of 02 fish representing 8 species were captured: northern pike, golden shiner, rock bass, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, yellow perch, and round goby. The dominant species were pumpkinseed (38%), yellow perch (2%) and bluegill and largemouth bass (5% each). YOY pumpkinseed, bluegill and yellow perch were captured. The fall catch consisted of 55 fish representing 8 species: eastern silvery minnow, golden shiner, bluntnose minnow, pumpkinseed, bluegill, yellow perch, johnny darter, and round goby. The predominant species was yellow perch (86%). YOY pumpkinseed, bluegill and yellow perch were captured. Table 3 Site C Fish Community Results (200) Common Name Scientific Name Number of Fish [(Size Range (FL, mm)] Summer Fall northern pike Esox lucius (443) eastern silvery minnow Hybognathus regius 3 (76-82) golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas (8) (60-0) Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 53

54 Common Name Scientific Name Number of Fish [(Size Range (FL, mm)] Summer Fall bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus (66) rock bass Ambloplites rupestris 6 (3-38) pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 39 (2-95) (44) bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 5 (20-07) 2 (34-64) largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 5 (39-72) yellow perch Perca flavescens 2 (4-59) 34 (55-223) johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum 2 (57-66) round goby Neogobius melanostomus 4 (79-83) (68) Total Number of Fish Total Number of Species 8 8 Seine Netting Effort (No. of passes) 3 3 Transect Site D Shoreline Habitat Description and Seine Netting Summary (Photos 20-2) The Transect Site D stream banks were fully vegetated with reed canary grass, hog-peanut, black medick, common buckthorn, red-osier dogwood, red oak, crack willow, and white ash. There was some exposed soil along the shoreline. The shoreline had a gradual slope and was rocky. The water clarity was very poor and it was difficult to accurately estimate the amount of vegetation cover. As shown on Figure 8, the offshore topography was very gentle. A m depth was reached at a distance of 3 m from shore. The substrate was firm and consisted of fines and cobbles with large boulders along the first 0 m. There was no emergent vegetation within the wetted area. Submergent vegetation began near 6 m from shore with some tapegrass that provided 20% cover and had reached the surface. There was no vegetation between 7-9 m from shore. At 0 m, the substrate was a little less firm (sunk in 2 cm) and there were only the occasional cobble. The submergent vegetation provided 50% cover and had only reached 30% of the column height. The submergent vegetation included stonewort, tapegrass, Canada Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 54

55 waterweed and flat-stem pondweed as well as some remnant milfoil. Carp were observed. The aquatic cover types included the aquatic vegetation and blow. During the fall it was noted that the deeper area had become fully vegetated and had reached 75% of the column height. Photo 20 Looking at the shoreline of Site D, July 20, 200 Photo 2 Looking south at the shoreline of Site D, October 8, 200 Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 55

56 Figure 8 Site D Shoreline Habitat Profile As shown on Table 4, during the summer sampling a total of 99 fish were captured representing 7 species: rock bass, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, yellow perch, johnny darter, and round goby. The most common species were yellow perch (53%), largemouth bass (2%) and round goby (%). YOY rock bass, pumpkinseed, largemouth bass and yellow perch were captured. The fall catch consisted of 232 fish representing 3 species: largemouth bass, yellow perch, and johnny darter. The dominant species was yellow perch (94%). YOY largemouth bass and yellow perch were captured. Table 4 Site D Fish Community Results (200) Common Name Scientific Name Number of Fish [(Size Range (FL, mm)] Summer Fall rock bass Ambloplites rupestris 4 (33-37) pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 3 (30-33) bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 6 (28-2) Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 56

57 Common Name Scientific Name Number of Fish [(Size Range (FL, mm)] Summer Fall largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 2 (43-20) 4 (68-20) yellow perch Perca flavescens 53 (42-64) 27 (50-50) johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum (66) (40-72) round goby Neogobius melanostomus (25-82) Total Number of Fish Total Number of Species 7 3 Seine Netting Effort (no. of passes) 3 Transect Site E Shoreline Habitat Description and Seine Netting Summary (Photos 22-24) The shoreline at Transect Site E was fully vegetated with cattails, reed canary grass, sensitive fern and clumps of nannyberry, white ash, field bindweed and meadowsweet. There was a small bank that was 30 cm high and was composed of fines. As shown on Figure 9, the offshore topography was very gentle. A. m depth was reach at a distance of 8 m from shore. The substrate was firm but consisted of fines. There was no aquatic vegetation along this transect. During the fall visit sparse Canada waterweed and tapegrass were observed having 5-20% cover and <30% of column height. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 57

58 Photo 22 Looking south along the shoreline at Site E, July 20, 200 Photo 23 Looking south at Site E, July 20, 200 Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 58

59 Photo 24 Looking south at Site E, October 8, 200 Figure 9 Site E Shoreline Habitat Profile Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 59

60 As shown on Table 5, the summer catch included 242 fish from 8 species: longnose gar, brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, yellow perch, johnny darter, and round goby. The dominant species were yellow perch (4%), round goby (29%) and pumpkinseed (2%). The summer catch included YOY brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass and yellow perch. The fall sampling captured 60 fish from 7 species: bluntnose minnow, banded killifish, pumpkinseed, largemouth bass, yellow perch, johnny darter, and round goby. The catch was primarily composed of yellow perch (84%). YOY pumpkinseed, largemouth bass and yellow perch were captured. Table 5 Site E Fish Community Results (200) Common Name Scientific Name Number of Fish [(Size Range (FL, mm)] Summer Fall longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus (70) bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus (58) brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 3 (47-52) banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus 5 (54-73) pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 30 (25-95) (32) bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 3 (22-64) largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 23 (43-72) 2 (78-5) yellow perch Perca flavescens 00 (35-43) 34 (54-8) johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum 2 (42-62) 6 (60-8) round goby Neogobius melanostomus 70 (32-98) (77) Total Number of Fish Total Number of Species 8 7 Seine Netting Effort (no. of passes) 3 3 Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 60

61 Sampling Site 9 Offshore Habitat Description and Boat Electrofishing Summary Sampling Site 9 was located roughly 75 m downstream of Sampling Site 0 (Figure 4). This site was 60 m long. The water depth averaged.5 m. The substrate consisted of fines. The site was poorly vegetated with tapegrass and the occasional milfoil. The aquatic vegetation provided 5% cover and had reached 30-70% of the column height by the July 20 th visit. The amount of vegetation cover was difficult to establish due to the turbid water conditions. The shoreline was not developed, with some rock protection and cattails present. As shown on Table 6, the spring fish sampling consisted of 65 fish representing 6 species: golden shiner, brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass and yellow perch. The dominant species were pumpkinseed (62%), yellow perch (27%) and bluegill (5%). The summer catch included 54 fish from 3 species: longnose gar, alewife, gizzard shad, northern pike, white sucker, golden shiner, blackchin shiner, brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, yellow perch and brook silverside. The most common species were pumpkinseed and largemouth bass (22% each) and yellow perch and brook silverside (9% each). The summer catch included YOY pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass and yellow perch. During the fall, 67 fish from 9 species were captured: northern pike, eastern silvery minnow, golden shiner, brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, yellow perch and brook stickleback. The most common fish were yellow perch (38%), pumpkinseed (32%) and brook silverside (3%). YOY bluegill, and largemouth bass were captured. Table 6 Site 9 Fish Community Boat Electrofishing Results (200) Common Name Scientific Name Number of Fish [(Size Range (FL, mm)] Spring Summer Fall longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus 2 ( ) alewife Alosa pseudoharengus (56) gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum (347) northern pike Esox lucius (255) (430) white sucker Catostomus commersoni (390) eastern silvery minnow Hybognathus regius (80) Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 6

62 Common Name Scientific Name Number of Fish [(Size Range (FL, mm)] Spring Summer Fall golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 7 (65-99) 4 (46-92) blackchin shiner Notropis heterodon (46) brown bullhead Ameiurus 3 nebulosus (78-299) (22) pumpkinseed Lepomis 02 2 gibbosus (35-32) (3-04) bluegill Lepomis 8 8 macrochirus (35-93) (32-3) largemouth bass Micropterus 2 salmoides (387) (46-233) yellow perch Perca flavescens 44 5 (37-52) (5-26) brook silverside Labidesthese 5 sicculus (36-56) Total Number of Fish Total Number of Species Electrofishing Effort (seconds) (63-00) (48-308) 53 (85-2) 6 (35-22) 2 (78-92) 63 (60-27) 22 (75-85) Sampling Site 0 Offshore Habitat Description and Boat Electrofishing Summary Sampling Site 0 was located approximately 75 m upstream of Sampling Site 9 (Figure 4). The site length was 55 m. The site was vegetated with pondweed, tapegrass, and occasional Richardson s pondweed and stonewort. The water depth averaged. m. The aquatic vegetation provided 5% cover and had reached 50% of the column height by the July 20 th visit. As shown on Table 7, a total of 06 fish representing 5 species were captured during the spring sampling. The fish species were: golden shiner, brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill and yellow perch. The most common species were pumpkinseed (47%), yellow perch (42%) and golden shiner (8%). This site was moved 0 m to the west of the spring site during the summer visit due to the density and height of the aquatic vegetation. During the summer sampling only 26 fish were captured representing 8 species: northern pike, golden shiner, brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, yellow perch and brook silverside. The most common species were pumpkinseed and bluegill (23% each) and yellow perch (5%). YOY bluegill were captured. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 62

63 This site was moved 45 m to the east of the spring site during the fall visit due to the density and height of the aquatic vegetation. The fall catch included 6 fish representing 8 species: golden shiner, brown bullhead, rock bass, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, yellow perch and brook silverside. The most abundant species were the same as during the summer sampling [i.e. yellow perch (46%), pumpkinseed (23%) and bluegill (2%)]. The fall catch included YOY largemouth bass and yellow perch. Table 7 Site 0 Fish Community Boat Electrofishing Results (200) Common Name Scientific Name Number of Fish [(Size Range (FL, mm)] Spring Summer Fall northern pike Esox lucius (46) golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 8 (76-50) 3 (38-98) 4 (89-08) brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 2 (44-25) (22) 2 ( ) rock bass Ambloplites rupestris (95) pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 50 (58-60) 6 (55-37) 37 (76-42) bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 2 (80-32) 6 (3-6) 20 (85-26) largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 2 (33-43) 4 (63-257) yellow perch Perca flavescens 44 (75-67) 4 (99-48) 74 (50-3) brook silverside Labidesthese sicculus 3 (3-48) 9 (70-92) Total Number of Fish Total Number of Species Electrofishing Effort (seconds) Sampling Site Offshore Habitat Description and Boat Electrofishing Summary Sampling Site was located approximately 72 m upstream of Sampling Site 0 (Figure 4). The site length was 55 m. The site was vegetated with Richardson s pondweed, tapegrass, coontail, milfoil, and Canada waterweed. The water depth averaged.5 m. The aquatic vegetation provided 5-0% cover and had reached 20-50% of the column height (with a few individuals having had reached the surface) by the July 20 th visit. By the fall visit, the aquatic community had reached 75% of the column height and there was a patchy distribution of tapegrass. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 63

64 As shown on Table 8, the spring catch included 72 fish from 6 species: northern pike, golden shiner, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, and yellow perch. The most abundant species were pumpkinseed (44%), yellow perch (28%) and golden shiner (8%). This site was moved 0 m to the west of the spring site during the summer visit due to the density and height of the aquatic vegetation. During the summer, only 29 fish from 8 species were captured: bowfin, golden shiner, blackchin shiner, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, yellow perch and brook silverside. The most abundant species were brook silverside (28%) and largemouth and yellow perch (2% each). YOY largemouth bass were captured. This site was moved 3 m to the east of the spring site during the fall visit due to the density and height of the aquatic vegetation. The fall catch consisted of 436 fish representing species: common carp, golden shiner, blacknose shiner, brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, black crappie, yellow perch, Johnny darter, and brook silverside. The most abundant species were yellow perch (49%), brook silverside (32%) and pumpkinseed (8%). The fall catch included YOY bluegill and largemouth bass. Table 8 Site Fish Community Boat Electrofishing Results (200) Common Name Scientific Name Number of Fish [(Size Range (FL, mm)] Spring Summer Fall bowfin Amia calva (573) northern pike Esox lucius (205) common carp Cyprinus carpio 2 (80-8) golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 3 (69-35) (32) 25 (62-5) blackchin shiner Notropis heterodon (58) blacknose shiner Notropis heterolepis (42) brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 3 ( ) pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 32 (32-65) 2 (64-92) 36 (75-5) bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 5 (58-88) 4 (0-33) (44-28) Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 64

65 Common Name Scientific Name Number of Fish [(Size Range (FL, mm)] Spring Summer Fall largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides (378) 6 (43-86) 6 (62-95) black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus (99) yellow perch Perca flavescens 20 (62-87) 6 (53-63) 22 (58-208) johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum (68) brook silverside Labidesthese sicculus 8 (33-5) 38 (72-85) Total Number of Fish Total Number of Species 6 8 Electrofishing Effort (seconds) Sampling Site 2 Offshore Habitat Description and Boat Electrofishing Summary Sampling Site 2 was located approximately 99 m upstream of Sampling Site (Figure 4). The site length was 50 m. The site was vegetated with tapegrass, coontail and milfoil. The water depth averaged 0.7 m. The aquatic vegetation provided 5-5% cover and had reached the surface by the July 20 th visit. As shown on Table 9, the spring catch consisted of 85 fish from 4 species: golden shiner, brown bullhead, pumpkinseed and yellow perch. The most abundant species were golden shiner (38%), pumpkinseed (35%) and yellow perch (26%). During the summer only 20 fish representing 8 species were captured: white sucker, golden shiner, brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, yellow perch and brook silverside. The most common species was yellow perch (40%). No YOY were captured. This site was moved 44 m to the east of the spring site during the fall visit due to the density and height of the aquatic vegetation. The fall catch included 299 fish from 0 species: golden shiner, blackchin shiner, brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, black crappie, yellow perch, Johnny darter and brook silverside. The most common species were brook silverside (40%), yellow perch (32%) and golden shiner (3%). The fall catch included YOY pumpkinseed and bluegill. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 65

66 Table 9 Site 2 Fish Community Boat Electrofishing Results (200) Common Name Scientific Name Number of Fish [(Size Range (FL, mm)] Spring Summer Fall white sucker Catostomus commersoni (283) golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 32 (75-98) 2 (38-2) 40 (52-05) blackchin shiner Notropis heterodon (54) brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus (234) 2 ( ) 2 ( ) pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 30 (32-40) 3 (6-28) 3 (43-20) bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 3 (03-09) 2 (25-40) largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 2 (25-37) 5 (65-72) black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 2 (72-20) yellow perch Perca flavescens 22 (94-72) 5 (05-9) 95 (53-207) johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum (53) brook silverside Labidesthese sicculus 2 (38-39) 20 (68-90) Total Number of Fish Total Number of Species Electrofishing Effort (seconds) Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 66

67 4.3 Fish Habitat and Community Summary The habitat within the project area was fairly homogenous consisting primarily of a slow moving glide with fine sediments and dense submergent vegetation. Much of the project area was located within the bay created by Belle Island. The aquatic vegetation along the shoreline within the bay consisted primarily of extremely dense floating and submergents with a thin band of emergent (cattails). Offshore, but still within the bay at the mid channel sites, the vegetation was chocked with dense submergent vegetation. The navigable channel associated with the Rideau Canal system was located close to the east shoreline. This channel contained the deepest habitat (at 3.6 m) and lacked aquatic vegetation. The presence and role of the channel (i.e. to allow for boat traffic) helps to reduce the density of aquatic vegetation on this side of the Cataraqui River. There is another route on the west side that represents a dredged access route from the Rideau Canal navigation corridor to the Music Marina near the foot of John Counter Boulevard. Here the vegetation was less dense as well but there was no change in water depth. The only spawning activity observed during the spring, summer and fall field sampling consisted of yellow perch which were found spawning throughout the mid channel sites during the spring visit (ample eggs and ripe females were captured). However the presence of YOY pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass and the occasional rock bass and brown bullhead suggests that these species are also spawning within the project area. Overall, the results demonstrated that the communities were composed primarily of common warm to cool water sport and forage fish; no species of conservation value or SAR were captured or observed. The sportfish captured were northern pike, white sucker, yellow bullhead, brown bullhead, rock bass pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, black crappie, and yellow perch. The percent sportfish captured with the boat electrofisher and seine net were 83% and 86%, respectively. The boat electrofishing catch was represented by yellow perch (35%), pumpkinseed (34%) and brook silversides (0%). The seine net catch was represented by yellow perch (67%) and round goby (9%). Not surprisingly, the fish species found within the project area are those species which prefers slow moving water bodies and the majority of species captured spawn within aquatic vegetation or algae. All species observed were considered common cool to warm water forage or sport fish. Table 20 provides a summary of each species trophic class, thermal regime, preferred habitat, reproductive guild, spawning period and spawning temperatures. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 67

68 Table 20 Species Name longnose gar List of Fish Species and their Habitat Use within the Project Area Scientific Trophic Thermal General Habitat Reproductive Guild* Name Class* Regime (Adult) Lepisosteus osseus piscivore warm Slow moving water, pools, in heavily vegetated areas of lakes and rivers. Often associated with woody debris. Preferred water temp. 33. C. bowfin Amia calva carnivore warm Found in slow moving water that is heavily vegetated. Prefers water temperatures of C A..4 Non-guarders. Open substrate spawners. Semi-buoyant egg masses. Adhesive eggs, attach to submergents or bottom. B.2.5 Guarder. Nest spawner with adhesive eggs. Nests within aquatic vegetation. Spawning Period Spring - summer (May - June) Spring (May - June) Spawning Temp ( C) 9-2 C 6-9 C alewife Alosa pseudoharengus planktivore cold Prefer open water up to 60m deep in water temperatures of 6-2 C. A..4 Non-guarders. Open substrate spawners. Semi-buoyant egg masses. Adhesive eggs, attach to submergents or bottom. Summer 0-22 C gizzard shad Doro soma cepedianum herbivore cool Pool habitats up to 33m deep, pelagic species. Preferred water temperature 0-2 C. A..2. Non-guarders. Open substrate spawners. Rock and gravel spawners with pelagic larvae. Summer 7-23 C Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 68

69 Species Name Scientific Name Trophic Class* Thermal Regime General Habitat (Adult) nothern pike Esox lucius piscivore cool Clear, slow moving water with dense aquatic vegetation. Preferred water temp 7-2 C. Reproductive Guild* A..5 Non-guarder. Open substrate spawner. Scatters eggs onto submerged live or dead aquatic plants or recently flooded live terrestrial plants. Occasionally on wood. Adapted to low oxygen concentrations. Spawning Period Early spring Spawning Temp ( C) 5- C central mudminnow Umbra limi insectivore/ omnivore cool/ warm Ponds and pools with dense aquatic vegetation. A..5 Non-guarder. Open substrate spawner. Scatter or deposit adhesive eggs onto submerged live or dead aquatic plants or recently flooded live terrestrial plants. Occasionally on wood. Adapted to low oxygen concentrations. Spring 3-6 C white sucker Catostomus commersoni insectivore/ omnivore cool Slow moving water, pools. A..3 Non-guarder. Open substrate spawner. Rock and gravel spawners with benthic larvae. Spring (April- May) 0-20 C Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 69

70 Species Name Scientific Name Trophic Class* Thermal Regime General Habitat (Adult) carp Cyprinus carpio omnivore warm Prefers pool habitats with depths less than 30m in water temperatures between C. Reproductive Guild* A..4 Non-guarder. Open substrate spawner. Adhesive eggs on submerged matter. Spawning Period Spring - summer Spawning Temp ( C) 7-26 C eastern silvery minnow Hybognathis regius herbivore/ detrivore warm Prefers slow moving small to large rivers with dense macrophytes. A..4 Non-guarder. Open substrate spawner. Adhesive eggs on submerged matter. Spring (April- May) 3-20 C golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas omnivore cool Clear water with aquatic vegetation and slow velocities. Preferred water temperature 7-24 C. A..5 Non-guarder. Open substrate spawner. Deposits adhesive eggs onto filamentous algae (may use aquatic vegetation). Adapted to low oxygen concentrations. Late spring - summer C Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 70

71 Species Name blackchin shiner Scientific Name Notropis heterodon Trophic Class* insectivore Thermal Regime cool/ warm General Habitat (Adult) Clear water with aquatic vegetation and slow velocities. Reproductive Guild* Categorized as A..5 in MTO 2006, however little is known of its spawning behaviour. A..5 Nonguarder. Open substrate spawner. Scatter or deposit adhesive eggs onto submerged live or dead aquatic plants or recently flooded live terrestrial vegetation. Spawning Period Spring - summer Spawning Temp ( C) blacknose shiner Notropis heterolepis insectivore cool/ warm Clear water with aquatic vegetation, shallow depths and slow velocities. Categorized as A..6 in MTO 2006, however little is known of its spawning behaviour. It is assumed to spawn over sand. May be tolerant of low oxygen which would not be typical of A..6 (Becker 983, Scott and Crossman 976) Spring - summer bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus omnivore warm Variety of habitats. Prefers water temp of 29 C. B.2.7 Nest spawner. High parental care. Deposits eggs underneath flat stones (occasionally uses logs). Late spring - summer 9-26 C Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 7

72 Species Name yellow bullhead Scientific Name Trophic Class* Thermal Regime General Habitat (Adult) Ameirus natalis insectivore warm Shallow, slow moving water with abundant aquatic vegetation. Preferred water temperature 28.3 C. Reproductive Guild* B.2.7 Nest spawner. High parental care. Nests in shallow depression near stream bank, stones or stumps. Spawning Period Spring - summer (May - June) Spawning Temp ( C) 6-24 C brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus insectivore warm Shallow, slow moving water with abundant aquatic vegetation. B.2.7 Nest spawner. High parental care. Nests in natural or constructed holes and cavities such as the underneath of flat stones. Late spring - summer 4-25 C banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus insectivore cool Quiet shallows with sand or gravel substrate and aquatic vegetation. A..5 Non guarder, open substratum spawner. Adhesive eggs that stick to live or dead vegetation. Summer 2-25 C rock bass Ambloplites rupestris insectivore/ piscivore cool Rocky areas in lakes and streams. Prefers water temp of C. B.2.3 Nest guarder. Rock and gravel nester. Late spring - early summer 6-23 C Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 72

73 Species Name pumpkinseed Scientific Name Lepomis gibbosus Trophic Class* Thermal Regime General Habitat (Adult) insectivore warm Prefers slow moving water with aquatic vegetation or small woody debris. Prefers water temp of C. Reproductive Guild* B.2.2 Nest guarder. Shallow depressions created in areas with aquatic vegetation. May occur within a variety of substrates. Adhesive eggs. Spawning Period Late spring - early summer Spawning Temp ( C) 6-23 C bluegill Lepomis macrochirus insectivore warm Prefers shallow, well vegetated areas with slow or no flow. Prefers water temp of C. B.2.2 Nest guarder. Shallow depressions created in areas with firm bottom. May occur within a variety of substrates. Adhesive eggs. Summer 9-26 C largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides insectivore/p iscivore warm Prefers shallow bays and lakes over rivers. Strongly associated with soft substrate and aquatic vegetation or large woody debris. Prefers water temperatures of C. B.2.2. Nest guarders. Spawn on available substrate. Prefer to utilize plant material for nests. Eggs adhesive. Late spring to summer 6-23 C Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 73

74 Species Name black crappie Scientific Name Pomoxis nigromaculatus Trophic Class* insectivore/p iscivore Thermal Regime cool General Habitat (Adult) Clear, quiet warm water of ponds, large lakes. Associated with abundant growths of aquatic vegetation and sand to mud bottoms. Prefer water temperatures 2-25 C. Reproductive Guild* B.2.2 Nest guarder. Shallow depressions created in areas with aquatic vegetation. May occur within a variety of substrates. Adhesive eggs. Spawning Period Spring Spawning Temp ( C) 4-20 C yellow perch Perca flavescens insectivore/p iscivore cool Variable, prefer open water with some aquatic vegetation, slow moving water. Prefers water temperatures of C. A..4 Non-guarders. Open substrate spawners. Semi-buoyant egg masses. Adhesive eggs, attach to submergents or bottom. Spring 6-2 C johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum insectivore cool Variety of habitats but prefers areas with moderate to no current over sandy or mixed substrate. Prefers water temperatures of 22.8 C. B.2.7 Nest builder with high parental care. Deposits eggs underneath rock or ledge. Spring 2-2 C Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 74

75 Species Name brook silverside Scientific Name Labidesthes sicculus Trophic Class* Thermal Regime General Habitat (Adult) insectivore warm Found in the surface waters of lakes and quiet rivers. Prefers water temperatures of 24.5 C. Reproductive Guild* A..4 Non-guarders. Open substrate spawners. Semi-buoyant egg masses. Adhesive eggs, attach to submergents or bottom. Spawning Period Spring - summer (May - Aug) Spawning Temp ( C) 7-23 C round goby Neogobius melanostomus invertivore cool Found in the lower waters of rivers and in the nearshore habitat of lakes. Invasive species B..3 Guarder. Substrate choosers. Adhesive eggs that attached to rocky substrate in clusters. Spring - summer (May - July) 9-26 C (Balon 98, Becker 983, Coker et al. 200, Easkin 2009,McMahon 982, MTO 2006, Port et al., Scott and Crossman 973) Bowfin Environmental Consulting Page 75

76 5.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS In order to understand the potential impacts, a general understanding of the footprints created by both the construction activities and the bridge itself is required. A summary of these footprints is provided below. 5. Footprint of Bridge and Construction Activities 5.. Description of Construction Options and Summary of Footprint The construction of the bridge will require access at each bridge pier location and the installation of the bridge spans. The. km shore-to-shore distance at the preferred corridor means that one of the following three in-water bridge construction options could be used: a temporary earth berm; dredging; or a temporary work bridge. Additional information on the construction methods is provided in Appendix C. Temporary Earth Berm The temporary earth berm would involve infilling an area with earth material and capping it with gravel to provide a temporary roadway. It is anticipated that a 5 m to 0 m depth of fill would be required. The berm would be 0 m at the top and have a 40 m x 25 m area around each pier for a total footprint of 6.2 ha. It would take two to three months to construct during the midsummer/early fall and would span from both riverbanks up to the navigable channel (the navigable channel would remain open). The berm would be in place for two construction seasons and removed after the bridge is built. The impacted area would be left to re-vegetate naturally. Several large culverts would be installed within the berm to allow for river flow continuity and species movement. The impacts associated with the berm include: restriction of fish movement (to the navigation channels and culverts), lack of use of the 6.2 ha area during two seasons, and temporary creation of an unvegetated area. The restriction of fish movement would be mitigated by the placement of large culverts, as needed. It is considered unlikely that the restriction of fish movement would have any measurable effect. It is noted that movement by large individuals of fish is already restricted throughout much of the area due to the dense macrophytic growth. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 76

77 The loss of the 6.2 ha area would result in a reduction of available fish spawning and nursery habitat from construction of the berm until such time as the vegetation becomes re-established. It is noted that the habitat being affected does not provide habitat for species of conservation value or SAR and is not limited (much of the area between Highway 40 and the LaSalle Causeway consists of the same type of habitat). While the area was used for spawning and rearing by sunfish, bass and perch, the habitat is not limiting. Dredging Dredging would involve excavating a channel below the existing river mudline. It would be completed from and for construction barges which need about 3 m of draft for water access (or.4 m to.8 m below the existing river mudline). The dredged area would have 5 m of bottom width plus a 45 m x 25 m area around each pier for a total impact area of 4.3 ha. Dredging would occur once over two to three months during the mid-summer/early fall. Once the bridge is built, the dredged channel could either be back-filled or left in place. The following impact analysis is based on the dredgeate being removed from site and being disposed of at an appropriate offsite location. Should the dredgeate be replaced then the impacts would be similar as the earth/gravel berm (with the exception that the habitat will be available to fish for movement, but have limited value for spawning during construction). The dredging operation would result in an increase in depth by.4 m resulting in a water depth of 3 m. Based on past experience with increase in depth in the Cataraqui River and the absence of vegetation in the navigation channel, it is assumed that the dredging operation will result in a long term (possibly permanent) area that is unvegetated (unless the dredgeate is returned). As such the impacts associated with dredging include: restriction of fish movement within the areas while dredging is taking place, and creation of an unvegetated area. While there is a change in habitat, there is no permanent or temporary loss of habitat availability associated with dredging as is the case with the berm option. The restriction of fish movement would be negligible as it would only affect very small sections of the river at any one time (i.e. the area being dredged). No measurable impact to fish movement is likely to occur. The reduction in vegetation would result in a change in habitat and a reduction of spawning/nursery habitat within the 4.3 ha impact area. It is noted that the habitat affected does not provide habitat for species of conservation value or SAR and is not limited (much of the area between Highway 40 and the LaSalle Causeway consists of the same type of habitat). The area was used for spawning and rearing by sunfish, bass and perch, but this habitat is not limiting. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 77

78 Work Bridge The temporary work bridge would be built adjacent to the permanent bridge. It would have 5 m spans with 600 mm pile supports for each span. Two hundred temporary piles would be installed during the mid-summer/early fall and be in place for two construction seasons. The area of disturbance from the piles would be approximately 0.6 ha. While in place, the work bridge would also cause shading to an additional area of approximately.4 ha. This shading could alter the composition and density of the aquatic vegetation and in turn affect the fish community. Combined, both impact areas comprise 2 ha and should be considered in the comparison of impacts. Once the bridge is built, the work bridge would be removed. The temporary piles would either be removed or cut below the top of the riverbed and left in place. The impacts associated with the work bridge include: restriction of fish movement within the area while piles are being installed and removed, the temporary habitat loss of 0.6 ha and a reduction in aquatic vegetation within approximately.4 ha. No measurable impact to fish movement is likely to occur. The reduction in available habitat does not include habitat for species of conservation value or SAR and is not restricted (the majority of entire area between Highway 40 and the LaSalle Causeway provide the same type of habitat). The shading of vegetation underneath the work bridge is a temporary loss of aquatic vegetation as habitat. Depending on the reduction of vegetation, the area may continue to provide similar function (spawning/nursery habitat) or if a large amount of the vegetation is lost, then there would be a temporary loss of this area for spawning Physical Footprint of Bridge The footprint of the bridge includes the approaches, piers and superstructure. Of these only the piers would have an in-water footprint. The piers would be built in place using large diameter steel pipes filled with concrete. At this time three preliminary concept designs are being considered: box girder, arch with v-piers and tube. The total in-water footprint of each of these options is 33.4 m 2, m 2 and 77.0 m 2, respectively. The piers would be located over 30 m from shore. The superstructure would be built offsite and brought to site by barge or road. The direct impacts associated with the bridge (foundations and superstructure) include: minor restriction of fish movement and avoidance of the area while the piers are being constructed and the loss of m 2 of fish habitat. Indirect impacts include the potential for shading, however it is noted that the preliminary bridge clearance above the water is 3 m on the west shore and gradually rises to 4 m over the navigable channel. As such only partial shading would be Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 78

79 expected. Other potential impacts include loss of a portion of the riparian corridor and erosion along the shoreline. 5.2 Evaluation of Potential Impacts The construction of a new bridge across the Cataraqui River has the potential to impact fish and/or fish habitat throughout the bridge s lifespan. This section looks at the typical impacts that could occur based on the preliminary bridge concept designs and the three proposed alternatives for in-water construction. The construction methods of the approaches, piers and superstructure would involve similar activities regardless of the in-water method chosen. These include: the use of heavy construction equipment, placement of material, and vegetation clearing. Other activities may also include infilling, excavation and dredging. These activities can result in impacts to the surface water quality and to vegetation. The significance of the potential impacts is measured using three different criteria:. area affected: The area affected may be local in extent signifying that they will only be impacted within the project area or regional in extent signifying that they may impact an area outside the immediate project area. 2. the duration of the impact: The duration of the impact may be rated as short term (-2 years), medium term (3-4 years) or long term (>4 years). The duration may also be affected by the frequency of the impact (i.e. once or repetitive). 3. the magnitude of the impact: The magnitude of the impact may be: (a) negligible signifying that the impact is not noticeable, (b) minor signifying that the project s impacts are perceivable and require minor mitigations, (c) medium signifying that the project s impacts are perceivable, requiring mitigations as well as enhancement and/or compensations, or (d) major signifying that the project s impacts would destroy the environmental component within the project area. Other potential impacts which could occur include the spread of invasive species and accidents and malfunctions. It is the cumulative effect of all of these actions and impacts which can result in a Harmful Alteration Disruption or Destruction (H.A.D.D.) to fish habitat. The potential impacts of a project are analysed for the construction, operation and decommissioning phases. The activities associated with the construction and decommissioning Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 79

80 of the bridge would be similar and these are discussed together beginning with an analysis of the potential to impact surface water quality and vegetation using the criteria outlined above. This is followed by a discussion of the potential for the spreading of invasive species and accidents and malfunctions. Finally, a risk assessment for fish habitat as per the Practitioner s Guide to the Risk Management Framework for DFO Habitat Management Staff (Version.0) is completed for the construction/decommissioning phases. This risk assessment involves a matrix with two scales and uses slightly different terminology than those listed above. The first scale is the scale of negative effect which uses three attributes: extent, duration and intensity. The second is the scale of sensitivity of fish and fish habitat that consists of four attributes: species sensitivity, species dependence on habitat, rarity and habitat resiliency. The definitions for the attributes and explanations for the ranking are provided by the above mentioned guide. The last sub-section deals with the operation phase Construction/Decommissioning Phases As discussed above, the activities which could potentially impact fish or fish habitat would be two-fold. First, and as highlighted earlier, there would be those in-water activities associated with gaining access at each bridge pier location and to install the bridge spans. Once access is provided, then the construction of the bridge would create a new set of impacts associated with such activities as isolation of areas for pier and span construction, in-filling of forms with cement, and accidents and malfunctions. It is noted that the direct footprint of any of the three construction methods is much larger (i.e. between ha) than the footprint of the bridge itself (i.e. between m 2 ). Surface Water Quality The construction/decommissioning activities that could potentially impact the surface water quality are removal of riparian vegetation, grading of shoreline, in-filling (i.e. earth berm, construction of piers), alteration of surface flow patterns and/or disturbance of substrate (causing suspension of sediments). Prior to mitigation, the impacts associated with a decrease in surface water quality and/or quantity would be local, moderate and repetitive to long term in duration and minor in magnitude. The use of mitigation measures can reduce or eliminate these potential impacts. Examples of typical measures include: prior to any work within 30 m of the shoreline, mitigation measures should be put in place to prevent the movement of sediments and to ensure that no erosion is occurring outside of the work area. At a minimum, sediment fencing should be properly installed along the riverbanks prior to undertaking any excavation or clearing of vegetation within 30 m of the watercourse. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 80

81 any removal of vegetation along the shoreline should be minimized and removal should be completed using small machinery. any stock piles of spoil or fill material should be stored at least 30 m from the watercourse and protected by silt fencing. additional materials (i.e. rip rap, filter cloth and silt fencing) should be readily available in case they are needed promptly for erosion and /or sediment control. the sediment erosion control measures should not be removed until the terrestrial vegetation has become re-established. during the in-water works the use of silt curtains around the work area will likely be required. These curtains would need to be put in place prior to the removal of any aquatic vegetation or substrate, as well as any infilling or pile driving. Additional turbidity curtains would need to be on-site. monitoring of the sediment control measures should occur on a daily basis by a qualified inspector to ensure that no suspended sediments or erosion is occurring outside of the work area. in-water activities should be suspended during periods of heavy rain events or high winds. concrete is considered to be toxic to the aquatic environment (unless marine cement is utilized). Prior to pouring any concrete, the work area must be isolated. The placement of a berm, culverts or piers within a watercourse can result in changes to water flow patterns and velocities. In the Cataraqui River the water velocities are low and surface flow speed and direction is largely dictated by the wind. As such the activities associated with this project are not anticipated to impact water velocities in any way that would affect fish or fish habitat. An Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) should be created once the final design and construction methods have been established. This plan should include measures to contain cement to the work area. A well laid out monitoring plan should be included within the EPP. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 8

82 Following the implementation of the appropriate mitigation measures and monitoring, it is anticipated that the potential impacts associated with surface water control can be reduced to negligible or eliminated. Vegetation The construction of the bridge will result in the loss of both aquatic and riparian vegetation. The loss of the riparian vegetation can result in the loss of large woody debris, shading and food source (i.e. insects falling into the river). It should be noted that the wide span of the Cataraqui River minimizes the importance of shoreline vegetation as shade and that along the alignment there are only a few locations were woody vegetation is present. Prior to the use of mitigation measures the loss of any shoreline vegetation is considered to be local, medium term and minor in magnitude. Recommended mitigation measures include: prior to the removal of any riparian vegetation, erosion and sediment control measures such as those discussed previously should be properly installed and maintained; the removal of riparian vegetation should be minimized; removal of riparian vegetation should occur utilizing small machinery to minimize compaction and impacts to the riverbanks; the shoreline should be re-vegetated with native vegetation including trees and shrubs; and the erosion control measures should be kept in place and maintained until the riverbanks have become fully re-vegetated. As it is anticipated that very little riparian vegetation will need to be removed and following the successful implementation of typical mitigation measures and with appropriate monitoring for any plantings, it is anticipated that the potential impacts to riparian vegetation would be reduced to negligible. The amount of aquatic vegetation that will be lost will vary depending on the construction methodology. As the habitat was uniform and no aquatic species of concern or SAR were observed and since the vegetation communities are common no impact to the aquatic vegetation for its own sake is anticipated. The potential for the loss of aquatic vegetation to affect fish production is discussed below. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 82

83 Spread of Invasive Species During all phases of the project, there will be the potential for vessels to be brought in from areas outside of the Great Lakes system. These vessels have the potential to introduce invasive species into the Cataraqui River. In order to minimize this potential any vessel originating from outside of the Great Lakes should have its ballasts purged prior to entering the water. Accidents and Malfunctions The likelihood of accidents and malfunctions occurring is considered minimal provided that best management practices are followed such as those outlined below. Should accidents and/or malfunctions occur they have the possibility of being serious and need to be considered before they happen. First, no equipment should be permitted in any watercourse. All equipment working near the water should be well maintained, clean and free of leaks. Maintenance on construction equipment such as refuelling, oil changes or lubrication should only be permitted in designated spill containment areas where all precautions would be made to prevent oil, grease, antifreeze or other materials from inadvertently entering the ground or the surface water flow. If possible these areas should be located at a minimum 30 m from the watercourse. Second, spill kits should be located on site. The crew should be fully trained on the use of cleanup materials in order to minimize impacts of any accidental spills. The area should be monitored for leakage and in the unlikely event of a minor spillage the project manager should halt the activity and implement corrective measures. Any spills should be immediately reported to the MOEE Spills Action Centre. A spill contingency plan should also be developed and provided to employees. Fish and Fish Habitat As mentioned previously, the impact assessment of a project s activities on fish and fish habitat must include all potential stressors and effects and is based on the risk assessment matrix created by DFO. A description of the concept plan for the bridge and the three in-water construction methods being considered including the potential impact to fish habitat is presented in Section 5. of this report. This section discusses the implications of the most important and somewhat complicated impact that is common to all three construction methods: loss of aquatic vegetation and its affect on fish production. It is noted that the complete loss of access to habitat (albeit temporary) only occurs in the berm option. This impact as well as others is considered and discussed in the risk assessment matrix presented in Tables 22 and 23. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 83

84 Aquatic Vegetation As shown on Table 2, each of the three in-water bridge will result in the loss of aquatic vegetation to a varying degree. Table 2 Summary of Change in Aquatic Vegetation Item Temporary Earth Berm (ha) Dredging (ha) Temporary Work Bridge (ha) Direct footprint Indirect (shading) n/a n/a -.44 Total (partially and fully impacted) While the loss of vegetation is often considered a negative impact, in situations such as this where the aquatic vegetation is extremely dense over an extensive area, there is also an argument that the removal of aquatic vegetation may be a benefit to fish production. The impact of creating a temporary or more long-term unvegetated area may be considered an enhancement for pelagic fish, piscivores and benthic omnivores. It is acknowledged that this concept of selfenhancement through the creation of unvegetated areas is not common. No information on its use as enhancement for projects could be located. However, there are studies in the scientific literature which discuss fish production in relation to the density of aquatic vegetation (Barnett and Schneider 978, Caffrey 993 and Dibble et al. 997). Highlights are provided below. First, Barnett and Schneider (978) looked at fish communities in watercourses in Florida. These communities were dominated by killifish, livebearers and centrarchids and the watercourses consisted of warm water with low turbidity, dense macrophytes and high nutrients. The aquatic vegetation listed included egeria (Egeria densa), southern naid (Najas quadalupensis), coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), cabomba (Cabomba caroliniana), bladderwort (Utricularia vulgaris), broadleaf watermilfoil (Myriophyllum heterophyllum) and stonewort (Chara sp.) and, occasionally, eelgrass (Vallisneria Americana). These communities and vegetation types are comparable to those in the Cataraqui River. This study noted that the fish community located within dense aquatic vegetation was primarily restricted in terms of its size [typically individuals which were <50 mm total length (TL)]. They found that the dense vegetation provided good protection from predators for juvenile fish but poor habitat for predators which were often restricted to the edge. Second, a literature review completed by Dibble et al (997) looked at the interactions between aquatic vegetation and fish assemblages. Their main findings were: juvenile and smaller fish species were more abundant with increasing plant density; Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 84

85 a decrease in the abundance of pelagic species (i.e. white bass, gizzard shad and inland silverside); a decrease in fish abundance occurs during the fall when the vegetation dies-back; decreases in plant density caused by boat traffic tends to result in a decrease in fish; aquatic vegetation can provide a physical barrier to fish movement, reducing predator prey interaction; aquatic vegetation can also create a visual barrier that reduces feeding success by species such as sunfish and killifish; presence of dense macrophytes decreases fish growth and condition (dense macrophytes were linked to decreased condition of largemouth bass, bluegill, black crappie, white crappie and redear sunfish), whereas moderate levels of macrophytes provide optimal level for fish production; largemouth bass growth was significantly reduced when aquatic plants provided >40% cover; a study found that the total removal of macrophytes resulted in increase in growth of largemouth bass, crappies, bluegill and redear sunfish and that largemouth bass tended to become piscivorous at a younger age when the aquatic vegetation density was decreased; results for yellow perch varied on the amount of aquatic vegetation (areas with dense macrophytes allowed for increased growth due to a decrease in competition for food however, when macrophytes covered the entire water body yellow perch became stunted; this was especially true for shallow systems without deep, unvegetated areas); a shoreline that is densely vegetated can hinder spawning through a decrease in available nest sites; benthic omnivores such as suckers decline in numbers in areas with dense macrophytes; studies of shoreline communities have found that the number of cyprinids and channel catfish decreases and the number of sunfish and shad increase when the littoral zone becomes densely vegetated; Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 85

86 studies looking a community shifts following the increase in Eurasian watermilfoil resulted in an increase in golden shiner, sunfish, brook silverside, yellow perch and largemouth bass and a decrease in benthic insectivores (i.e. suckers, channel catfish, freshwater drum); and an intermediate coverage of 0-40% seemed to be optimum for growth and survival. Finally, Caffrey (993) looked at how aquatic plant management affected recreational fisheries development in Ireland. This study focused on canals where angling efforts are focused on pike, yellow perch and cyprinids. These canals are shallow (.6-.8 m) and have a low water velocity and dense aquatic vegetation. The author found that the fish crop estimates were highest for sites with moderate macrophyte coverage (20-70%), lowest for sites with dense coverage (>70%) and moderate for sites that were sparsely vegetated (<20%). The common theme found within these articles is that dense aquatic macrophytes results in specific types of fish communities. Many of these characteristics were observed within the Cataraqui River: few large piscivores, few suckers or redhorses and dense populations of juvenile and adult centrarchids. There were no ripe yellow perch or eggs observed along the shoreline, instead the perch were found within the middle transects where the vegetation densities were somewhat lower during the spring. Based on the available literature the creation of low or no vegetation can create an area for larger species such as largemouth bass, northern pike, larger yellow perch, and white sucker. This could create an increase in the productivity and biomass of fish as a result, but likely only locally (within the immediate vicinity of the newly created open habitat). These benefits would be of a temporary nature if the berm option was utilized and more permanent for the dredging option. The results from the scientific literature should be taken into consideration during the assessment of the impacts and requirements of enhancement and/or compensation. Risk Assessment As discussed above, DFO utilizes the Risk Assessment Matrix to categorize the risk associated to fish habitat and productivity. While the construction of the bridge itself has a small footprint ( m 2 ) and its potential impacts can be mitigated using typical best management practices, the footprint and impacts of the three in-water bridge construction methods being considered to gain access to the site have a much larger potential impact spectrum. The summary of the risk associated with each method is provided in the tables below. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 86

87 Table 22 Determining the Scale of Negative Effect Construction Method Attribute Rating Reasoning Extent Low Direct footprint will be 6.2 ha (localized effect within one portion of a large system). No indirect impacts are anticipated provided that best management practices are properly implemented and maintained. Earth Berm The berm would take 2-3 months to construct and remove and Duration High would be in place for 2 consecutive seasons. As such fish use of the area would be prevented over up to 4 years. Intensity Low The productivity of the system would be return to preconstruction conditions within -2 years following construction. Dredge Extent Duration Intensity Low High moderate (dredgeate not returned) low (dredgeate returned) The direct footprint will be 4.3 ha (localized effect within one portion of a large system). No indirect impacts are anticipated provided that best management practices and mitigation measures are properly implemented and maintained. The dredging will likely take season to create but the increased depth will result in the creation of an unvegetated area that will likely last > 8 years. (if dredgeate is returned, then vegetation should become re-established within 2 years). Following the dredging, the area is not expected to revegetate and as such will be less productive. Still, this option has the potential to allow for larger growth of sunfish and better preypredator interactions. If the dredgeate is returned, then the area will return to pre-construction conditions. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 87

88 Construction Method Work Bridge Attribute Rating Reasoning Extent Duration Intensity low high low The direct footprint will be 0.6 ha from the temporary piles (scattered over 2.0 ha). Indirect impact due to shading would result in a reduction of vegetation within an additional.4 ha. No other indirect impacts are anticipated provided that best management practices and mitigation measures are properly implemented and maintained. It will take season to install, season to remove and would be in place for 2 construction seasons. Following the completion of the bridge the temporary work bridge would be fully removed and the area is expected to return to pre-existing conditions within a few years. Table 23 Determining the Scale of Sensitivity of Fish and fish Habitat Construction Method Attribute Rating Reasoning The fish species present are mostly moderately sensitive to turbidity (MTO 2006). Provided that the best management practices are able to minimize or eliminate impacts due to turbidity this would rate as low. Earth Berm Species low Sensitivity Species present are habituated to areas with dense vegetation, soft substrate and slow water velocities. These species are generally resilient. No highly sensitive species such as salmonides are present. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 88

89 Construction Method Attribute Rating Reasoning Species Dependence on Habitat high This area, especially the mid channel, is used for spawning by several species (sunfish, bass, perch). There is a potential to impact spawning habitat for minimum of 6 years (berm would be in place for 2 seasons, would take an additional 2 seasons to install and remove and the habitat affected would require a minimum of 2 years to return to pre-existing conditions). Rarity nil There is an overabundance of this habitat within the river. Habitat Resiliency low This system is classed as warm-water. There will be no thermal or flow effects associated with this project. As the water depth will not be impacted, the aquatic vegetation is expected to become quickly re-established. Dredging Species Sensitivity low The fish species present are mostly moderately sensitive to turbidity (MTO 2006). Provided that the best management practices are able to minimize or eliminate impacts due to turbidity this would rate as low. Species present are habituated to areas with dense vegetation, soft substrate and slow water velocities. These species are generally resilient. Species Dependence on Habitat high No highly sensitive species such as salmonides are present. This area, especially the mid channel, is used for spawning by several species (sunfish, bass, perch). As the dredging operation will cause the loss of aquatic vegetation, there is a potential to impact spawning over the long term. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 89

90 Construction Method Attribute Rating Reasoning Rarity nil There is an overabundance of this habitat within the river. This system is classed as warm-water. Habitat Resiliency moderate (dredgeate removed) low (dredgeate returned) There will be no thermal or flow effects associated with this project. If the dredgeate is removed the physical characteristics of the site will remain changed from a shallow habitat chocked with vegetation to a more pelagic habitat more suitable for pelagic species and larger individuals. Work Bridge Species Sensitivity low If the dredgeate is returned, then the physical characteristics of the site will return to pre-existing conditions. The fish species present are mostly moderately sensitive to turbidity (MTO 2006). Provided that the best management practices are able to minimize or eliminate impacts due to turbidity this would rate as low. Species present are habituated to areas with dense vegetation, soft substrate and slow water velocities. These species are generally resilient. Species Dependence on Habitat low high No highly sensitive species such as salmonides are present. This area, especially the mid channel, is used for spawning by several species (sunfish, bass, perch). It is uncertain what portion of the area would no longer function as spawning habitat as it would depend on the amount of shading and Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 90

91 Construction Method Attribute Rating Reasoning resilience of the vegetation. Rarity nil There is an overabundance of this habitat within the river. This system is classed as warm-water. Habitat Resiliency low There will be no thermal or flow effects associated with this project. Loss of vegetation would be small and localized and temporary. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 9

92 5.2.2 Operation Phase The operation phase of the bridge would have little potential to interact with fish or fish habitat provided that the stormwater management design prevents bridge runoff or accidental spills from entering the Cataraqui River. 6.0 HABITAT ENHANCEMENTS At this time it is unknown if the project will be accepted as self-compensating. The creation of channels within the emergent cattail portion of the Cataraqui Marsh to the north of the preferred corridor should be considered in the event that enhancement measures are required. Other potential enhancement measures could focus on habitat rehabilitation opportunities not only within the preferred corridor but also in such areas as the federal dredged sediment disposal site along the north shore of Belle Island. 7.0 CONCLUSION The project area was fairly homogenous consisting primarily of a slow moving glide with fine sediments and dense submergent vegetation. The Rideau Canal navigation channel is located between the mid and east side of the project area. The canal contained the deepest habitat (3.6 m) and no aquatic vegetation. A secondary navigation channel was located between the canal channel and the Music Marina on the west side. Here the vegetation was less dense than outside of the channel but there was no change in depth. The east shore provides coarser substrate (cobbles/bounders) and less aquatic vegetation. In 200, fish community sampling was conducted once during the spring, summer and fall using seine netting and boat electrofishing. The only spawning activity observed consisted of yellow perch which were found spawning throughout the mid channel sites during the spring visit (ample eggs and ripe females were captured). However the presence of YOY pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass and the occasional rock bass and brown bullhead suggests that these species are also spawning within the project area. The most common species were yellow perch, pumpkinseed, brook silverside and round goby. Overall, the results demonstrated that the communities were composed primarily of common warm to cool water sport and forage fish; no species of conservation value or SAR were captured or observed. The sportfish captured were northern pike, white sucker, yellow bullhead, brown bullhead, rock bass pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, black crappie, and yellow perch. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 92

93 The three in-water bridge construction methods would all be categorized as acceptable low risk projects under the DFO Risk Management Framework and as such none of the three options should be eliminated based on their potential to impact fish or fish habitat. However, the area of direct impact varies greatly between all three options. The work bridge would impact the least amount of area followed by dredging. Regardless of the option chosen, most of the potential impacts associated with gaining access to construct the bridge and the construction of the bridge itself could be eliminated or reduced using mitigation measures, such as those cited in this report. Once the methods of construction are chosen, the evaluation of potential impacts should be updated. Upon tender, the EPP should be designed and should include appropriate monitoring. It is important to note that the discussion pertaining to SAR is based on those species and regulations that are in place at the time of writing of this report. A review of the potential of the project to impact SAR and any new regulations that may come into effect may be needed should this project proceed to tender. 8.0 REFERENCES Balon, E. K. (98). Additional and amendments to the classification of reproductive styles in fishes. Env. Biol. Fish, 6(¾), Becker, G.C. (983) Fishes of Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, Wisconsin. Bernett, B.S., & Schneider, R.W Fish population in dense submersed plant communities. Hyacinth Control Journal 2, 2-4 Caffrey, J.M Aquatic plant management in regulation to Irish recreational fisheries development. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 3, Coker, G.A., Portt, C.B., & Minns, C.K. (200). Morphological and Ecological Characteristics of Canadian Freshwater Fishes. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences pp. Cudmore-Vokey,B. & Crossman, E.J. (2000). Checklists of the Fish Fauna of the Laurentian Great Lakes and Their Connecting Channels. Can. MS Rpt. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2550, v+39p. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 93

94 Dibble, E.D, Killgore, K.J., & Harrel, S.L Assessment of fish-plant interactions. Miscellaneous Paper A-97-6, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Eakins, R.J. (2009) Ontario Freshwater Fishes Life History Database. Version On-line database. ( accessed January 5, 2009 LRL (200). Level hydrogeological Assessment Level Proposed Brown Pit Part of Lots 23 & 24, concession 8 Geographic Township of Osnabruck now the Township of South Stormont, United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. Prepared by Levac Robichaud Leclerc Associates. Prepared for David Brown Construction. April pp + appendices. McMahon, T. E. (982). Habitat Suitability Index Models: Creek chub. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/ pp. MTO (2006). Environmental Guide for Fish and Fish Habitat, Section 4: Field Investigations Appendix C. Ministry of Transportation Ontario. Portt, C.B, Coker, G., & Minns, C.K. (999) Riverine Habitat Characteristics of Fishes of the Great Lakes Watershed. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 248, vi+62p Scott W.B. & Crossman E.J. (973) Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Bulletin 84. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa. White, D.J. (200). Recovery Strategy for Ogden s Pondweed (Potamogeton ogdenii) in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Prepared for Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. vi+4 pp.. Personnel Communications Katie Novacek, District Planner, OMNR Peterborough District. correspondence dated May 4, Wes Paetkau, Senior Planner with J. L. Richards, Kingston, Ontario. correspondence dated March 8, 20. Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 94

95 Appendix A List of Fish Species for the Cataraqui River Species Name Latin Name Trophic Class Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch Thermal Regime General Habitat (Adult) piscivore cold Found in mid-waters at depths of 6-60m. Preferred water temperature -7 C. Reproductive Guild* A.2.3 Non-guarder. Buries eggs in gravel. Spawning Period/ Habitat Fall Spawning Temp. ( C) 3-2 C Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha piscivore cold Found in mid-waters at depths of 5-60m. Preferred water temperature 2-6 C. A.2.3 Non-guarder. Buries eggs in gravel. Fall C longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus piscivore warm slow moving water, pools, in heavily vegetated areas of lakes and rivers. Often associated with woody debris. Preferred water temp. 33. C. Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus planktivore cold prefer open water up to 60m deep in water temperatures of 6-2 C. A..4 Nonguarders. Open substrate spawners. Semi-buoyant egg masses. Adhesive eggs, attach to submergents or bottom. A..4 Nonguarders. Open substrate spawners. Semi-buyonat egg masses. Adhesive eggs, attach to Spring - summer (May - June) Summer 9-2 C 0-22 C Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 95

96 Species Name Latin Name Trophic Class Thermal Regime General Habitat (Adult) Reproductive Guild* submergents or bottom. Spawning Period/ Habitat Spawning Temp. ( C) northern pike Esox lucius piscivore cool Clear, slow moving water with dense aquatic vegetation. Preferred water temp 7-2 C. white sucker Catostomus commersoni insectivore/ omnivore cool Slow moving water, pools. Carp Cyprinus carpio omnivore warm Prefers pool habitats with depths less than 30m in water temperatures between C. A..5 Non-guarder. Open substrate spawner. Scatters eggs onto submerged live or dead aquatic plants or recently flooded live terrestrial plants. Occasionally on wood. Adapted to low oxygen concentrations. A..3 Non-guarder. Open substrate spawner. Rock and gravel spawners with benthic larvae. A..4 Non-guarder. Open substrate spawner. Adhesive eggs on submerged matter. Early spring Spring (April- May) Spring - summer 5- C 0-20 C 7-26 C Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 96

97 Species Name Latin Name Trophic Class golden shiner blackchin shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas Notropis heterodon Thermal Regime General Habitat (Adult) omnivore cool Clear water with aquatic vegetation and slow velocities. Preferred water temperature 7-24 C. insectivore cool/ warm Clear water with aquatic vegetation and slow velocities. Reproductive Guild* A..5 Non-guarder. Open substrate spawner. Deposits adhesive eggs onto filamentous algae (may use aquatic vegetation). Adapted to low oxygen concentrations. Categorized as A..5 in MTO 2006, however little is known of its spawning behaviour. A..5 Non-guarder. Open substrate spawner. Scatter or deposit adhesive eggs onto submerged live or dead aquatic plants or recently flooded live terrestrial vegetation. Spawning Period/ Habitat Late spring - summer Spring - summer Spawning Temp. ( C) C Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 97

98 Species Name Latin Name Trophic Class Thermal Regime General Habitat (Adult) Reproductive Guild* Spawning Period/ Habitat Spawning Temp. ( C) blacknose shiner Notropis heterolepis insectivore cool/ warm Clear water with aquatic vegetation, shallow depths and slow velocities. Categorized as A..6 in MTO 2006, however little is known of its spawning behaviour. It is assumed to spawn over sand. May be tolerant of low oxygen which would not be typical of A..6 (Becker 983, Scott and Crossman 976) Spring - summer bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus omnivore warm Variety of habitats. Prefers water temp of 29 C. B.2.7 Nest spawner. High parental care. Deposits eggs underneath flat stones (occasionally uses logs). Late spring - summer 9-26 C yellow bullhead Ameirus natalis insectivore warm Shallow, slow moving water with abundant aquatic vegetation. Preferred water temperature 28.3 C. B.2.7 Nest spawner. High parental care. Nests in shallow depression near stream bank, stones or stumps. Spring - summer (May - June) 6-24 C Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 98

99 Species Name Latin Name Trophic Class brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus American eel Anguilla rostrata Insectivore/p iscivore Thermal Regime General Habitat (Adult) insectivore warm Shallow, slow moving water with abundant aquatic vegetation. cool Soft bottom substrate in lakes and creeks. Reproductive Guild* B.2.7 Nest spawner. High parental care. Nests in natural or constructed holes and cavities such as the underneath of flat stones. A... Non guarder, spawn in Sargasso Sea Spawning Period/ Habitat Late spring - summer Do not spawn in Canada Spawning Temp. ( C) 4-25 C banded killifish rock bass Fundulus diaphanous Ambloplites rupestris insectivore cool Quiet shallows with sand or gravel substrate and aquatic vegetation. insectivore/ piscivore cool Rocky areas in lakes and streams. Prefers water temp of C. pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus insectivore warm Prefers slow moving water with aquatic vegetation or small woody debris. Prefers water temp of C. A..5 Non guarder, open substratum spawner. Adhesive eggs that stick to live or dead vegetation. B.2.3 Nest guarder. Rock and gravel nester. B.2.2 Nest guarder. Shallow depressions created in areas with aquatic vegetation. May occur within a variety of Summer Late spring - early summer Late spring - early summer 2-25 C 6-23 C 6-23 C Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 99

100 Species Name Latin Name Trophic Class Thermal Regime General Habitat (Adult) Reproductive Guild* Spawning Period/ Habitat Spawning Temp. ( C) substrates. Adhesive eggs. smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu insectivore/ piscivore warm Clear water with rocky or sandy substrate. Prefers water temperatures of C. B.2.2 Nest builder with high parental care. Various substrates, prefers rocky. Adhesive eggs. Spring 3-20 C largemouth bass Micropterus psalmodies insectivore/ piscivore warm Prefers shallow bays and lakes over rivers. Strongly associated with soft substrate and aquatic vegetation or large woody debris. Prefers water temperatures of C. B.2.2. Nest guarders. Spawn on available substrate. Prefer to utilize plant material for nests. Eggs adhesive. Late spring to summer 6-23 C black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus insectivore/ piscivore cool Clear, quiet warm water of ponds, large lakes. Associated with abundant growths of aquatic vegetation and sand to mud bottoms. Prefer water temperatures 2-25 C. B.2.2 Nest guarder. Shallow depressions created in areas with aquatic vegetation. May occur within a variety of substrates. Adhesive eggs. Spring 4-20 C Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 00

101 Species Name Latin Name Trophic Class Thermal Regime General Habitat (Adult) Reproductive Guild* Spawning Period/ Habitat Spawning Temp. ( C) yellow perch Perca flavescens insectivore/ piscivore cool Variable, prefer open water with some aquatic vegetation, slow moving water. Prefers water temperatures of C. A..4 Nonguarders. Open substrate spawners. Semi-buyonat egg masses. Adhesive eggs, attach to submergents or bottom. Spring 6-2 C johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum insectivore cool Variety of habitats but prefers areas with moderate to no current over sandy or mixed substrate. Prefers water temperatures of 22.8 C. B.2.7 Nest builder with high parental care. Deposits eggs underneath rock or ledge. Spring 2-2 C Logperch Percine caprodes insectivore cool/war m Rocky or sandy habitats in lakes or streams. A..6 Non-guarders. Spawn over sand. Eggs are adhesive. Spring 0-8 C brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus insectivore warm Found in the surface waters of lakes and quiet rivers. Prefers water temperatures of 24.5 C. A..4 Nonguarders. Open substrate spawners. Semi-buyonat egg masses. Adhesive eggs, attach to submergents or bottom. Spring - summer (May - Aug) 7-23 C Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 0

102 Species Name Latin Name Trophic Class round goby Neogobius melanostomus Thermal Regime General Habitat (Adult) invertivore cool Found in the lower waters of rivers and in the nearshore habitat of lakes. Invasive species Reproductive Guild* B..3 Guarder. Substrate choosers. Adhesive eggs that attach to rocky substrate in clusters. Spawning Period/ Habitat Spring - summer (May - July) Spawning Temp. ( C) 9-26 C (Balon 98, Bowfin 2007 and 2009, Coker et al. 200, Cooke and Bunt 999, Edwards et al. 983, Krieger et al. 983, Scott and Crossman 998, Twomey et al. 984, Personal Communication, Katie Novacek) Species listed in regular type were indicated to occur by OMNR Species listed in bold type were observed by Bowfin Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 02

103 Appendix B List of Potential Fish Species based on those LOMU List for Lake Ontario Species Name Scientific Names Trophic Class Thermal Regime American brook Ichthyomyzon appendix cold lamprey silver lamprey Ichthyomyzon fossor parasitic cool/warm sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus parasitic cold lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens insectivore cold/cool longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus piscivore warm spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus piscivore warm bowfin Amia calva piscivore warm alewife Alosa pseudoharengus planktivore cold American shad Alosa sapidissima planktivore cold gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum planktivore/omnivore cool pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha piscivore cold Kokanee Oncorhynchus nerka planktivore Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch piscivore cold Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus piscivore cold tshawytscha rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss piscivore cold Atlantic salmon Salmo salar piscivore cold brown trout Salmo trutta piscivore cold/cool Artic char Salvelinus alpinus piscivore/generalist cold lake trout Salvelinus namaycush piscivore cold lake whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis insectivore cold lake herring Coregonus artedi planktivore cold round whitefish Prosopium cylindraceum insectivore cold rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax planktivore cold northern pike Esox lucius piscivore cool muskellunge Esox masquinongy piscivore warm grass pickerel Esox americanus piscivore warm vermiculatus chain pickerel Esox niger piscivore cool/warm central Umbra limi insectivore / omnivore cool / warm mudminnow mooneye Hiodon tergisus generalist cool/warm Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 03

104 Species Name Scientific Names Trophic Class Thermal Regime quillback Carpiodes cyprinus omnivore cool longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus insectivore cold white sucker Catostomus commersoni insectivore / omnivore cool lake chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta insectivore warm northern hog Hypentilium migricans insectivore warm sucker bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus insectivore/piscivore warm silver redhorse Moxostoma anisurum insectivore cool golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum insectivore warm shorthead redhorse Moxostoma insectivore warm macrolepidotum greater redhorse Moxostoma valenciennesi insectivore cool/warm goldfish Carassitus auratus omnivore warm northern redbelly Phoxinus eos herbivore cool / warm dace finescale dace Phoxinus neogaeus insectivore cool lake chub Couesius plumbeus insectivore cold common carp Cyprinus carpio omnivore warm grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella herbivore warm brassy minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni omnivore / herbivore cool hornyhead chub Nocomis biguttatus insectivore cool river chub Nocomis micropogon insectivore? cool golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas omnivore cool pugnose shiner Notropis anogenus herbivore cool emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides insectivore cool bridle shiner Notropis bifrenatus planktivore cool common shiner Luxilus cornutus insectivore cool blackchin shiner Notropis heterodon insectivore cool/warm blacknose shiner Notropis heterolepis insectivore cool/warm spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius insectivore cold/cool rosyface shiner Notropis rubellus insectivore warm spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera insectivore warm sand shiner Notropis ludibundus insectivore warm mimic shiner Notropis volucellus insectivore warm bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus omnivore warm fathead minnow Pimephales promelas omnivore warm blacknose dace Rhinichthys atratulus insectivore / generalist cool Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 04

105 Species Name Scientific Names Trophic Class Thermal Regime longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae insectivore cool creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus insectivore / generalist cool fallfish Semotilus corporalis insectivore cool pearl dace Margariscus margarita insectivore cold/cool central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum herbivore cool/warm striped shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus insectivore cool silver chub Macrhybopsis storeriana insectivore cool yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis insectivore warm brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus insectivore warm channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus insectivore/piscivore warm stonecat Noturus flavus insectivore warm tadpole madtom Noturus gyrinus insectivore warm American eel Anguilla rostrata piscivore/insectivore cool banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus insectivore cool burbot Lota lota piscivore cold/cool brook stickleback Culaea inconstans insectivore cool threespine Gasterosteus aculeatus insectivore cold stickleback ninespine Pungitius pungitius insectivore cold stickleback trout-perch Percopsis omiscomaycus insectivore cold white perch Morone americana insectivore warm white bass Morone chrysops insectivore/piscivore warm rock bass Ambloplites rupestris insectivore / piscivore cool green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus insectivore/piscivore warm pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus insectivore warm bluegill Lepomis macrochirus insectivore warm longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis insectivore warm smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui insectivore / piscivore warm largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides insectivore / piscivore warm white crappie Pomoxis annularis insectivore / piscivore cool black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus insectivore / piscivore cool yellow perch Perca flavescens insectivore / piscivore cool walleye Stizostedion vitreum piscivore cool rainbow darter Etheostoma caeruleum insectivore cool Iowa darter Etheostoma exile insectivore cool fantail darter Etheostoma flabellare insectivore cool Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 05

106 Species Name Scientific Names Trophic Class Thermal Regime least darter Etheostoma microperca insectivore cool/warm johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum insectivore cool logperch Percina caprodes insectivore cool / warm channel darter Percina copelandi insectivore cool/ warm blackside darter Percina maculata insectivore cool tesselated darter Etheostoma olmstedi insectivore cool rudd Scardinius insectivore cool erythrophthalmus brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus insectivore cool/warm freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens insectivore warm mottled sculpin Cottus bairdi insectivore cold slimy sculpin Cottus cognatus insectivore cold spoonhead sculpin Cottus ricei insectivore cold deepwater sculpin Myoxocephalus insectivore cold thompsonii round goby Neogobius melanostomus insectivore cool (Christie, 973; Coker et al. 200; Cudore-Vokey and Crossman, 2000; Eakins, 2009; MTO, 2006) Note that some fish species which are considered to only occur in the United States or which were extirpated from Ontario were not included (i.e. pirate perch). Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 06

107 Appendix C Concept Drawings Provided by Associated Engineering Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 07

108 Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 08

109 Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 09

110 Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc. 0